More info…
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Injury And Tort Law, Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets) In an action involving the theft of trade secrets, trial court’s pretrial dismissal of three of plaintiff’s cause of actions for being statutorily preempted is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff forfeited its challenge to the propriety of the pretrial procedure by failing to object to the trial court; 2) trial court did not act prematurely in disposing of plaintiff’s tort claims in pretrial proceedings; and 3) plaintiff’s claims were preempted by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, as the Act preempts claims based on the same nucleus of facts as trade secret misappropriation.
Nartron Corp. v. Schukra U.S.A., Inc.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving a vehicle seat control system that provides massage capability, District Court’s of grant summary judgment of dismissal of the complaint because of Plaintiff’s failure to join an alleged co-inventor is reversed, where any contribution co-Defendant made to the invention was insignificant and therefore prevents it from attaining the status of a co-inventor.
Rein v. US Patent
&
Trademark Office
(U.S. 4th Cir., Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark) In a civil action alleging defendant-agencies did not conduct an adequate search for documents requested by plaintiff-law firm under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and that defendant-agencies improperly withheld documents as exempt which were discovered during the search, award of summary judgment to defendant-agencies is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court erred in finding the Vaughn index contained adequate descriptive information to determine whether the challenged documents were properly withheld in whole or in part; 2) the district court did not err in holding the defendant-agencies properly withheld the challenged documents in whole or in part based on the deliberative process privilege; 3) the district court did it err in concluding the challenged redacted documents did not contain segregable material; and 4) the district court did not err in concluding the PTO properly withheld or redacted materials based on the attorney-client privilege, as protected by Exemption 5.
Data Mfg., Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
(U.S. 8th Cir., Administrative Law, Copyright, Transportation) In a dispute over billing fees, district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims is affirmed in part where all but one of DMI’s claims are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim was not preempted, and that claim is remanded for further proceedings.
aviation accident attorney
More info…
(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Corporation & Enterprise Law) In an unfair competition action, the District Court’s order remanding the case to state court is reversed, where 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d)(4) did not preclude subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act because Defendant-Best Buy did not have its principal place of business in the forum state of California.
tampa attorney
More info…
(U.S. 10th Cir., Civil Procedure, Securities Law) In an appeal from an order granting costs to Defendants following summary judgment in a securities fraud action, the order is affirmed, where the taxed materials were “necessarily obtained for use in the case” under 28 U.S.C. section 1920(2) & (4).
Canada Life Assur. v. LaPeter
(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Commercial Law, Landlord Tenant Law, Property Law & Real Estate) In an appeal from the District Court’s appointment of a receiver to manage a mall owned by Defendants, the order is affirmed where: 1) federal law governs the appointment of a receiver where jurisdiction is based on diversity; and 2) District Courts may consider a broad range of factors in determining whether to appoint a receiver.
US v. Dunn
(U.S. 10th Cir., Civil Procedure, Property Law & Real Estate) In an action by the U.S. to quiet title to land, the District Court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to stay is affirmed, where the land was not “public land” for which a patent could be issued. The District Court’s decision that Defendants possessed use rights in the land is reversed, where the deeds to the land did not confer such rights.
Tortu v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dept.
(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Injury And Tort Law) In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging excessive force by Defendant officers, the District Court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law to Defendant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) is reversed, where Defendant failed to file a Rule 50(a) motion prior to seeking relief under Rule 50(b).
St Petersburg Lawyer
More info…
(U.S. 4th Cir., Civil Procedure, Tax Law) In an appeal from a Tax Court deficiency judgment, judgment for the IRS is affirmed, where prior criminal proceedings against Plaintiff did not have a collateral estoppel effect because different parties bore the burden of proof in the Tax Court and criminal matters.
Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A.
(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Corporation & Enterprise Law) In an unfair competition action, the District Court’s order remanding the case to state court is reversed, where 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d)(4) did not preclude subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act because Defendant-Best Buy did not have its principal place of business in the forum state of California.
Canada Life Assur. v. LaPeter
(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Commercial Law, Landlord Tenant Law, Property Law & Real Estate) In an appeal from the District Court’s appointment of a receiver to manage a mall owned by Defendants, the order is affirmed where: 1) federal law governs the appointment of a receiver where jurisdiction is based on diversity; and 2) District Courts may consider a broad range of factors in determining whether to appoint a receiver.
US v. Dunn
(U.S. 10th Cir., Civil Procedure, Property Law & Real Estate) In an action by the U.S. to quiet title to land, the District Court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to stay is affirmed, where the land was not “public land” for which a patent could be issued. The District Court’s decision that Defendants possessed use rights in the land is reversed, where the deeds to the land did not confer such rights.
Tortu v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dept.
(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Injury And Tort Law) In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging excessive force by Defendant officers, the District Court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law to Defendant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) is reversed, where Defendant failed to file a Rule 50(a) motion prior to seeking relief under Rule 50(b).
aviation attorney
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
March 6, 2009 3:55 pm | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe