295 results for 'court:"USDC Central District of California"'.
J. Gee grants the family members' request for attorney fees following a $10 million judgment in their favor in their lawsuit stemming from the officer's fatal shooting of their loved one in 2016. The family's counsel seeks $1.5 million in attorney fees, though the hours spent reviewing the county's ex parte application to quash subpoena and request protective order are decreased, so counsel shall receive $1.4 million in attorney fees.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Gee, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 5:18cv762, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Attorney Fees
J. Kato finds in favor of the science-based nutritional supplement company for its complaint seeking a declaration that its use of the "Nature's Day" mark does not infringe on the dietary supplement brand's mark. The dietary supplement brand does not present evidence that the company knew that the products using the "Nature's Day" mark caused customer confusion, and the dietary supplement brand did not conduct discovery diligently enough to justify giving it more time to conduct discovery.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Kato, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 8:23cv766, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Evidence, Trademark, Discovery
J. Snyder grants L'Oreal's motion for terminating sanctions in a patent dispute over a hair-coloring dispensing system. The court found that the accused products did not infringe upon the patent, and that the patent holder did not allege a trade secret and that the information in the patent could not be protected as a trade secret. L'Oreal asserts that documents presented in the first amended complaint were inauthentic. A forensic expert determined that some documents had been edited after litigation began. Evidence shows that the patent holder "acted willfully, in bad faith, and with fault by repeatedly fabricating, destroying, and withholding important evidence."
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Snyder, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 2:18cv364, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Patent, Sanctions, Trade Secrets
J. Vera grants an insurance company's motion to dismiss a cardiovascular surgeon's allegations that the insurer did not fully pay for services provided. ERISA supersedes state laws and "presents aggrieved plaintiffs—including medical providers who have been assigned the right to pursue their patient’s health care benefits—with a remedy." The surgeon is granted leave to amend to be permitted to plead ERISA claims.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Vera, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv10071, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: Erisa, Insurance
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Marshall grants in part a company's motion for the award of reasonable royalties in a trademark infringement dispute. A jury found in favor of the company for misappropriation of trade secrets and infringement of the company's registered trademark. The court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the infringer from disclosing the company's trade secrets or marketing or selling the infringing implant. For the misappropriation of trade secrets claim and a doctor's breach of the non-disclosure agreement, $5.7 is awarded as a reasonable royalty, $11.5 million in exemplary damages, and $1 million for the counterfeit mark claim.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Marshall, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv3503, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Trade Secrets, Trademark
J. Snyder grants a photographer's motion for default judgment in a copyright infringement dispute with a real estate services company. The photographer alleges that the company used one of her photos without permission and without credit. The photographer sent a cease and desist letter, but the company did not respond. The photographer has sufficiently alleged copyright infringement. The photographer is awarded $22,000 in statutory damages and $1512 in costs.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Snyder, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv5528, NOS: Copyrights - Property Rights, Categories: Copyright, Damages
J. Frimpong denies in part a medical equipment manufacturer's motion to dismiss relators' allegations of violation of the False Claims Act. Relators allege that ventilators and patient monitoring systems manufactured and sold by the company are defective and unreliable and that the company "gave kickbacks to hospitals to purchase these devices at government expense." The relators have adequately pleaded remuneration and inducement under the Anti-Kickback Statute and have sufficiently alleged materiality and scienter under the False Claims Act.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Frimpong, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 2:19cv10960, NOS: False Claims Act - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: False Claims
J. Frimpong grants a company that ships and sells perishable agricultural commodities' application for a temporary restraining order in a contract dispute with a wholesale commission merchant that allegedly has not paid for shipments. The company has provided evidence that the merchant has had its Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) license suspended for non-payment and that their PACA trust assets are depleting. The commission merchant is enjoined from transferring proceeds from sales of any or all existing or future inventories of food pending the hearing on the company's motion for preliminary injunction.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Frimpong, Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 2:24cv2307, NOS: Agricultural Acts - Other Suits, Categories: Agriculture, Contract, Injunction
J. Aenlle-Rocha finds in favor of Home Depot against the customer's complaint that it sold him Graco Magnum X5 paint sprayer that “sparked” and caught on fire, causing serious burns to the customer's right hand, wrist and forearm. The customer does not provide any admissible evidence of a manufacturing defect about the sprayer. His only expect does not affirmatively state that the sprayer had a manufacturing defect, only that it possibly had one.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Aenlle-Rocha, Filed On: March 27, 2024, Case #: 8:20cv2127, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Evidence, Product Liability, Experts
J. Bernal finds in favor of the animal control officers against the animal rescue leader's claim that they issued a search warrant against her and the home owner, falsely accusing the latter two of stealing about 63 German shepherd dogs from an uninhabitable property. The fact that one of the animal control officers omitted how the animal rescue leader communicated with a San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department officer about receiving the 63 dogs does not impact that the animal control officers had probable cause to search the home owner's phone records or that the animal control officers authored a reasonable search warrant.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Bernal, Filed On: March 27, 2024, Case #: 5:22cv1600, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights
J. Klausner grants the streaming service's motion for attorney fees for its complaint alleging that Netflix infringed on the former's patents. Netflix refusing to withdraw its invalidity defense before trial caused the streaming service harm, because several incidents of Netflix's conduct indicates that it already abandoned the defense before trial but pretended otherwise to have the streaming service spend more resources against the defense. The streaming service may seek attorney fees related to invalidity from Oct. 15, 2023 to Oct. 19, 2023.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Klausner, Filed On: March 26, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv7556, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Patent, Attorney Fees
J. Wright denies in part the county's motion to dismiss allegations that deputies arrested an individual with Alzheimer's and dementia and did not provide the individual with his necessary daily medications, placed him in general population without monitoring, and did not take him to the hospital as promised, leading to his death. The family's violation of the Fourteenth Amendment claims for failure to protect from harm, failure to provide medical care, and deprivation of the right to familial relationship with decedent will continue. The family has sufficiently alleged that the county "failed to take reasonable action to summon medical care in the several days leading up to" decedent's death.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Wright, Filed On: March 26, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv5586, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights
J. Snyder denies a hotel's motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding a contract dispute with an architectural firm and denies in part its motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding the architectural firm's copyright infringement claim stemming from a contract to provide architectural design services for a new hotel. The firm alleges that its architectural designs were used without permission or payment. The firm has "adequately pled its claim for copyright infringement at this stage by alleging its ownership of the drawings and plans, its registration of the copyright, and the infringement" by the hotel.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Snyder, Filed On: March 25, 2024, Case #: 8:22cv459, NOS: Copyrights - Property Rights, Categories: Copyright, Contract
J. Frimpong grants in part a housing provider for individuals with disabilities' motion for summary judgment and denies in part the city's motion for summary judgment regarding allegations that the city enacted discriminatory zoning codes that applied more stringent rules on "group homes" which discriminate against individuals with disabilities. The housing provider has provided evidence that its residents are disabled. The city has not shown that "these ordinances benefit the disabled." The housing provider is entitled to summary judgment on its reasonable accommodation claim as the city has not shown "that the requested accommodation was not necessary, not reasonable, or would cause undue hardship."
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Frimpong, Filed On: March 20, 2024, Case #: 8:20cv504, NOS: Housing/Accommodations - Civil Rights, Categories: Housing
J. Aenlle-Rocha grants final approval of the settlement, bringing an end to the employees' class action accusing AT&T of not paying them all wages owed. AT&T agrees to pay a $75,500 net settlement, which is fair and adequate based on the strength of the employees' case and the extent of completed discovery.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Aenlle-Rocha, Filed On: March 18, 2024, Case #: 2:18cv8809, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, Settlements, Class Action
J. Carney grants default judgment to the bank for its complaint that the construction company and others owes the bank $111,000 for equipment financing. The bank shows that the construction company had valid contracts with the bank, that the bank loaned the construction company $111,000 with the couple acting as the guarantors, and that the construction company did not pay the owed money.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Carney, Filed On: March 18, 2024, Case #: 8:23cv2321, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Contract
J. Wright grants in part a global nutrition company's and denies a technology company's cross-motions for summary judgment regarding allegations of breach of the parties' agreements. The technology company has not shown that the master services agreement limits the nutrition company's remedies in the event of a breach. The nutrition company "raises genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the [technology company] committed fraud by concealment." The nutrition company "establishes that the statute of frauds bars [the technology company's] cause of action for breach of verbal agreements." The technology company has not shown that the nutrition company violated either the NDA or the enterprise license agreement.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Wright, Filed On: March 18, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv347, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Fraud, Contract
J. Snyder denies the city's motion to dismiss an investor's fraud and negligence claims, stemming from a cannabis permit consulting company of city employees who defrauded him of $900,000 with a sham consulting agreement for an application to open a cannabis business which cost other applicants $2857. Federal charges were brought against the architects of the fraudulent scheme. The city then sent the investor a notice threatening to terminate its state cannabis license if it did not drop the instant lawsuit. The investor has sufficiently alleged that the city failed to supervise its employees which permitted them to defraud the investor and that the city should have been aware of the corruption of the cannabis process due to FBI raids on some of those employees. It is premature to dismiss the investor's fraud claims.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Snyder, Filed On: March 15, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv384, NOS: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) - Other Suits, Categories: Fraud, Negligence, Racketeering
J. Staton grants the attorney general's motion for summary judgment and denies gun advocates' motion for summary judgment in a dispute over the constitutionality of California's Assault Weapons Control Act, a "law that makes it unlawful to manufacture, possess, sell, transfer, or import assault weapons into the state without a permit." There is no genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether "assault rifles are dangerous and unusual as a matter of law." The Assault Weapons Control Act is constitutional because either "assault rifles are dangerous and unusual and, therefore, not protected by the Second Amendment" or "assault rifles may be banned in accordance with this nation’s regulatory tradition of placing severe restrictions on dangerous and unusual weaponry."
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Staton, Filed On: March 15, 2024, Case #: 8:17cv746, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Firearms
J. Fitzgerald grants the trust default judgment for its complaint that the construction contractor did not submit monthly fringe benefit contributions for all hours worked by its employees. The trust shows through the trust agreements that the construction contractor had a duty to produce its records for audit, which it did not do, and that the trust had the authority to examine the construction contractor's payroll and business records to determine if the construction contractor abided by the terms of the trust agreements.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Fitzgerald, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv4272, NOS: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) - Labor, Categories: Erisa, Contract
J. Holcomb grants the consumer electronics company judgment on the pleadings regarding the technology company's complaint that the former's "Wi-Fi compatible" products infringe on the latter's patent entitled, "Method and Apparatus for Decoding Transmission Signals in a Wireless Communication System." The technology company's patent does not qualify as an inventive concept because the specification of the patent indicates that it is made of conventional methods and arithmetic averaging that was well understood when the technology company invented it.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Holcomb, Filed On: March 4, 2024, Case #: 8:22cv2310, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Patent
J. Garnett grants final approval to a $10 million settlement in a class action alleging that the window treatment company put a “discount” price on products that was actually the real price of the products. Class members who submit a claim will receive a settlement amount in cash, while class members who choose not to submit a claim will automatically receive store credit that will not expire. Class counsel is awarded just over $1.4 million, representing 14% of the settlement, which is well below the 25% benchmark set by the 9th Circuit.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Garnett, Filed On: March 4, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv8326, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Settlements, Attorney Fees, Class Action
J. Pym finds in favor of the officers against the homeowner's complaint that the officers entered the his home without a warrant and seized several of his credit cards. The officers were in hot pursuit of a separate suspect that began when the suspect did not pull over for a traffic stop and continued into the homeowner's home, and the immediacy of the pursuit did not end as one of the officers called for backup because there was always the intent to immediately arrest the suspect.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Pym, Filed On: February 29, 2024, Case #: 5:23cv33, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights