News

Case Summaries

Consumer Protection

[06/29] FTC v. Accusearch Inc.
In an action by the FTC to curtail Defendant's sale of confidential information and require it to disgorge profits, summary judgment for Plaintiff is affirmed where a practice may be "unfair" under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) even if it does not violate some law independent of the FTCA.

[06/19] Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc.
In an action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for sending unsolicited text messages, summary judgment for Defendant is reversed, where a genuine issue of material fact existed concerning whether the equipment used by Defendant had the capacity to store or produce numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator and to dial such numbers.

[06/15] Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co.
In an action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability based on an allegedly defective boat, the dismissal of the complaint on statute of limitations grounds is reversed, where the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act merely creates a limited, prospective duration for the implied warranty of merchantability; it does not create a deadline for discovering latent defects or for giving notice to the seller.

[06/09] New York v. Smokes-Spirits.com, Inc.
The Court of Appeals answered the following certified questions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in the negative: 1) Does New York City have standing to assert its claims under General Business Law section 349?; and 2) may the City assert a common law public nuisance claim that is predicated on N.Y. Public Health Law section 1399-ll?

[06/08] Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.
In an action claiming that Defendant car company made false and misleading statements about the safety of its used vehicles, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where Plaintiff's claims were all grounded in fraud, and thus his failure to plead with particularity merited dismissal.

[06/08] Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc.
In an action claiming violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, and breach of implied warranty, trial court judgment is affirmed where the trial court did not exceed its jurisdiction by awarding prejudgment interest to plaintiff as the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act permits recovery of prejudgment interest under Civil Code sec. 3287.

[06/02] Wike v. Vertrue, Inc.
In an action under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA) based on recurring fees charged to Plaintiff's debit card, summary judgment for Defendant is reversed, where the EFTA's statute of limitations began to run when the first recurring transfer took place, not when Defendant arranged it.

[06/01] Miller v. Bank of Am., NT & SA
Court of Appeals judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) defendant's practice of recouping overdrafts and charging insufficient funds fees to class members does not run afoul of the holding in Kruger, as the setoff of independent debt at issue there is not implicated; and 2) defendant's practice of recouping overdrafts and charging insufficient funds fees is permissible in light of the statement in Financial Code sec. 864 that overdrafts and bank charges are not debts and therefore not subject to the limitations placed on a bank's right of setoff set forth in the statute.

[05/28] Nat'l Assoc. of Optometrists & Opticians v. Brown
In a dormant Commerce Clause challenge to state laws preventing opticians from having specified business relationships with or offering services in the same locations as licensed optometrists and ophthalmologists, summary judgment for Plaintiffs is reversed where the laws did not discriminate between similarly situated medical professionals.

[04/24] Swanson v. Bank of Am., N.A.
Petition for rehearing of a judgment involving credit card interest rates is denied where: 1) the present court declines to follow the contrary conclusion of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, as any conflict will be resolved by a new regulation taking effect on July 1, 2010, which clears up the ambiguity in the current regulation and commentary; and 2) any reinstated claims under state law would rest on Delaware banking law, and defendant complied with the relevant Delaware statute and thus may not be held liable under Illinois law.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[06/30] Brummet v. Taylor
In a defamation action, district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law following jury verdict to plaintiffs is affirmed where the plaintiffs presented insufficient evidence to establish that anyone in defendant's audience understood the individual plaintiffs to be the object of his statements.

[06/30] Grammer v. John J. Kane Regional Centers
In a wrongful death action brought under the Federal Nursing Home Reform Amendments, district court judgment finding no right of action under the statutes and dismissing the case is reversed and remanded where it is clear that Congress intended to create individual rights in drafting and adopting the Amendments and plaintiff's mother falls squarely within the zone of interest the provisions are meant to protect. In addition, 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 provides the proper avenue for relief for the statutory provisions which plaintiff seeks to enforce, as defendant has failed to demonstrate that Congress foreclosed that option by adopting another, more comprehensive enforcement scheme.

[06/30] Butler v. Gloversville
In a personal injury action claiming that Defendants failed to use a recommended ground cover at a playground they operated, summary judgment for Defendants is reversed where Defendants presented insufficient scientific evidence to show that Plaintiff's injury would have occurred even with the recommended equipment.

[06/30] People v. Coventry First LLC
In an enforcement action by the state claiming that Defendant life settlement providers concealed commissions to brokers, who persuaded their clients to accept Defendants' offers, the denial of Defendants' motion to dismiss or compel arbitration is affirmed where: 1) the state was not bound by arbitration agreements signed by Defendants' clients; and 2) the complaint stated a claim that Defendants knew that the life settlement brokers' conduct constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.

[06/30] Hornbeck Offshore Transp., LLC v. US
In a tort action against the U.S. based on the Coast Guard's decision to phase out single-hulled oil barges such as those operated by Plaintiff, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where Plaintiff identified no duty that could give rise to liability under state law.

[06/30] Von der Ruhr v. Immtech Int'l, Inc.
In an action for breach of a licensing contract and tortious interference with contract, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the court did not abuse its discretion in precluding plaintiff's lay opinion testimony, as the testimony was not grounded in personal knowledge or experience; 2) there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find against co-defendants Thompson, Parks, and Sorkin and impose personal liability on the tortious interference with contract claim.

[06/30] Hartman v. Great Seneca Fin. Corp.
In an action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claiming that Defendants falsely stated in state-court complaints that a certain document was a statement of Plaintiff's account, summary judgment for Defendants is reversed where there was an issue of material fact as to whether Defendants' representations were misleading or deceptive.

[06/29] Vigilant Ins. Co. v. Chiu
Trial court judgment in favor of plaintiff for damages, interest, and costs related to defendant's theft of property is affirmed where a criminal restitution order under Penal Code sec. 1202.4 in favor of a victim of a crime does not preclude the victim or the victim's assignee from pursuing a separate civil action for restitution based on the same facts from which the criminal conviction arose.

[06/29] Roberts v. County of Los Angeles
In a negligence action against a public-entity health-care provider, trial court judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs must comply with both the six-month statute of limitations in the Government Claims Act and the three-year statute in the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) when bringing actions for medical negligence against public entities where the latter deadline is the outside date by which plaintiffs must file their suits against public-entity health-care providers; and 2) plaintiff's complaint was untimely filed despite being timely under the Act, as it was filed more than a year after the expiration of the three-year date in MICRA.

[06/26] Braunstein v. McCabe
In an action related to bankruptcy proceedings, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the court properly denied plaintiff's jury trial demand in the turnover action as no Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury attaches to the statutory turnover action authorized by 11 U.S.C. sec. 542; 2) the court properly granted attorney Ziady's motion to dismiss the defendant's fourth-party complaint for negligent misrepresentation as attorney Ziady owed no legal duty to defendant; and 3) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to amend the fourth-party complaint, as the record shows that the defendant's proposed amendment would have been futile. District court judgment is reversed where the court erred in its turnover order for the insurance proceeds as defendant's expenditures were not made in the ordinary course of business.

More...