297 results for 'court:"USDC Central District of California"'.
J. Frimpong grants the Nevada corporations a default judgment of $1.3 million in damages for their complaint that the construction company's subcontractors did not complete the unfinished work left by non-party Icon Identity Solutions. The construction company's lack of participation in this litigation would prejudice the Nevada corporations without default judgment. Also, the Nevada corporations successfully plead that the subcontractors did not uphold their end of the parties' deal.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Frimpong, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 8:22cv30, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Damages, Contract
J. Brooks denies in part motion to dismiss a family's allegations that a five-year-old died from died from melioidosis, an infectious disease caused by a tropical bacteria called Burkholderia pseudomallei, which they allege he was exposed to by contaminated aromatherapy room spray. The product was purchased at Walmart, and later that year, Walmart recalled the product after finding the bacteria in it. The parents are already litigating a suit against Walmart, and the majority of defendants consent to transfer. Claims against some defendants are severed from claims against other defendants, and the amended complaint shall be given a new case number. This case, with the remaining defendants, shall be transferred to United States District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division).
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Brooks, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 5:24cv870, NOS: Personal Injury - Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Tort, Wrongful Death
J. Slaughter grants an employee's motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement in a wage and hour suit. The adequacy of representation requirement is met, preliminary certification of the proposed settlement is proper, the settlement terms of the PAGA claim are fair, adequate, and reasonable and the proposed settlement meets notice requirements.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Slaughter, Filed On: April 26, 2024, Case #: 2:19cv7077, NOS: Fair Labor Standards Act - Labor, Categories: Employment, Settlements, Class Action
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. Snyder denies a patent holder's motion to amend judgment or in the alternative, motion for a new trial, on its willfulness claim in a patent infringement dispute. The court found in favor of the alleged infringer on the patent holder's willfulness claim. The patent holder has not shown that the conduct rose to the level of "wanton, malicious and bad-faith behavior required for willful infringement." The patent holder has not sufficiently identified which testimony it alleges was inadmissible or how the court relied on that testimony in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. "Leave to amend to address post-suit willfulness would not be appropriate."
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Snyder, Filed On: April 25, 2024, Case #: 2:18cv7090, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Patent
J. Snyder grants an airport's motion to dismiss a concession lease agreement dispute with a company that was providing online car parking services and operating airport lounges. The company alleges that after it declined to make a charitable contribution requested by the airport board president, the airport changed its scoring methodology so that the company would lose its bid. The company alleges that the airport then did not pay the full termination payment. The company did not present fraud claims in compliance with the California Government Claims Act but is granted leave to amend.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Snyder, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv4909, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Fraud, Contract
J. Pregerson grants in part Nike's motion for attorney fees in a trademark dispute. A company alleged that Nike and Nordstrom infringed upon its stylized “N” design in their “Nordstrom x Nike” collaboration. The court found that the company owner "misled by omission" his relationship with another party, who turned out to be his mother, and that the relationship was significant regarding proof of the sale of branded products during the relevant period. The company was ordered to pay attorney fees for the discovery misconduct. Days before the scheduled ESI investigation, the company owner alleged that all devices that were scheduled to be searched had been stolen from his car. Nike seeks "full" attorney fees, arguing that the case is "exceptional" due to the discovery misconduct. Nike is awarded $1,491,634 in attorney fees and costs.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Pregerson, Filed On: April 19, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv398, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: Trademark, Discovery, Attorney Fees
J. Marshall grants the protester $1.1 million in attorney fees after a jury found in his favor and awarded him $85,000 in damages on his excessive force and Monell claims that were part of his complaint alleging that the city's officers beat him for participating in a protest against the murder of George Floyd. The city requests a fee reduction because the protester did not prevail on all of his claims, but "the time spent on claims for which plaintiff did not prevail cannot reasonably be separated from time spent on claims on which plaintiff did prevail."
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Marshall, Filed On: April 19, 2024, Case #: 2:21cv6470, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Attorney Fees, Police Misconduct
J. Kato finds in favor of the company against the family's complaint that the company's nursing home neglected their loved one to the point that she developed sepsis and contracted Covid-19, resulting in her death. The family did not show diligence when conducting discovery as they did not serve their first set of document requests until seven months after the court issued the scheduling order, among other deficiencies, and the family does not present any record evidence that the company or any of its employees knew that the company's Covid-19 mitigation practices posed a serious risk of death to the loved one.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Kato, Filed On: April 19, 2024, Case #: 5:21cv1428, NOS: Other Personal Injury - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Elder Abuse, Discovery, Covid-19
J. Holcomb denies the government's motion to dismiss a naturalized citizen's allegations of violation of the Fifth Amendment after he filed an I-130 petition on behalf of his stepson, which the government revoked, because the citizen did not establish “that the beneficiary legally changed his name." The court possesses subject matter jurisdiction. It is premature for the court to rule on whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied to this action. The citizen has sufficiently stated an equal protection claim in asserting that Yemeni-Americans and their family members are subjected to a heightened evidentiary burden that is not applied to other citizens. The citizen has sufficiently stated a procedural due process claim by alleging that Immigration Services did not include his marriage certificate in the appeal sent to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Holcomb, Filed On: April 18, 2024, Case #: 8:23cv624, NOS: Other Immigration Actions - Immigration, Categories: Immigration
J. Bernal finds in favor of the management consulting company on the camera operator's complaint alleging that he was fired for not submitting proof of getting a Covid-19 vaccination after it denied his religious exemption to the vaccine. The camera operator argues that the company did not accommodate his religious beliefs, but allowing him to continue working without receiving the vaccine "would have exposed [his] co-workers to a greater risk of Covid-19 infection" and put his co-workers' lives in danger.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Bernal, Filed On: April 18, 2024, Case #: 5:22cv2220, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, Covid-19, Employment Discrimination
J. Frimpong denies in part a former senior vice president's motion for judgment as a matter of law and grants in part his motion for a new trial regarding his former employer's, a human tissue product seller's, allegations that he misappropriated trade secrets, breached relevant contracts and interfered with the company's prospective economic advantage. The jury properly found that the former employer's manufacturing process was confidential, and that the former employee used or disclosed this information. The breach of duty claims are not preempted by trade secret law. The damages are supported by the evidence. There were no legal errors that would justify granting a new trial. However, there was insufficient evidence of the former employee's ability to pay a punitive damages award. The parties are ordered to further brief the issue of an appropriate punitive damages award.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Frimpong, Filed On: April 17, 2024, Case #: 2:20cv3444, NOS: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) - Other Suits, Categories: Trade Secrets, Contract, Racketeering
J. Snyder denies in part an investment consulting group's motion to dismiss a pension fund's allegations of breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The pension fund alleges that the investment consulting group recommended a program management company and concealed information regarding the company's lack of experience and its owner's financial difficulties. The pension fund later found that some portfolio companies the management company had invested in were "worthless" and claims the consulting group failed to properly investigate the program management company. The pension fund has ERISA standing and has sufficiently pleaded its breach of fiduciary duty claim under ERISA. The fund is granted leave to amend its remaining claims.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Snyder, Filed On: April 15, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv7726, NOS: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) - Labor, Categories: Erisa, Fiduciary Duty
J. Snyder denies a company's motion to dismiss a business founder's allegations that after acquiring his business, the company violated the put agreement by failing to pay his retention bonus or fund the purchase of his remaining shares. Diversity jurisdiction has been established. The founder has sufficiently alleged his promissory fraud claim. The put agreement does not waive the founder's right to a jury trial. A stay is not warranted, as the arbitration proceedings are limited to employment agreement disputes, while this matter is regarding a put agreement dispute.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Snyder, Filed On: April 15, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv9055, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Fraud, Jurisdiction, Contract
J. Fitzgerald finds in favor of Mercedes-Benz USA against the consumer's complaint that it sold a defective used 2017 Mercedes-Benz C300 but did not honor its new vehicle limited warranty, which extends “to the original and each subsequent owner of a new Mercedes- Benz vehicle that any authorized Mercedes-Benz Center will make any repairs or replacements necessary to correct defects in material or workmanship, but not design, arising during the warranty period.” Part of the warranty does not apply because the consumer bought the vehicle from CarMax, not Mercedes-Benz, and the other obligations do not apply because Mercedes-Benz did not breach the warranty when it provided free repairs to address the malfunctioning ECO start/stop feature during the warranty period.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Fitzgerald, Filed On: April 9, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv3049, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Vehicle, Warranty, Contract
J. Aenlle-Rocha grants an insured's motion to overturn the insurer's denial of benefits for his son's treatment at a residential care facility. The treatment was denied as "not medically necessary" despite the insured's appeal with neuropsychological assessments, five letters of medical necessity from treatment providers, and thousands of pages of medical records and treatment notes. The insured "has satisfied his burden of proving medical necessity as to the treatment at issue with credible, persuasive evidence." The insurer denied the claim without sufficient explanation and "disregarded relevant medical evidence and did not afford [the insured] a full and fair review of his claims."
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Aenlle-Rocha, Filed On: April 9, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv6413, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Erisa, Insurance, Contract
J. Snyder denies in part a cannabis company's motion to dismiss an investor's claims of fraud and breach of contract after he requested the return of his investment and the company did not return the funds. The investor alleges that the company knowingly misrepresented the existence of the company, as well as its financial status, permits, and ability to conduct business in the state with required approvals. The investor has sufficiently alleged breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, concealment and false promise claims.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Snyder, Filed On: April 8, 2024, Case #: 2:23cv3304, NOS: Other Fraud - Torts - Personal Property, Categories: Fraud, Contract
J. Holcomb finds in favor of the state agency against the attorney's complaint, which alleges that the state agency must independently investigate the judge who served as an arbitrator in an underlying divorce action because the judge was actually a temporary judge. The Eleventh Amendment bars this action, because it gives states and state agencies sovereign immunity to cases filed in federal court.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Holcomb, Filed On: April 8, 2024, Case #: 5:22cv1709, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Judiciary, Immunity
J. Frimpong grants homeowners' application for a temporary restraining order to restrain a mortgage company's trustee's sale after it denied their request for a loan modification. The homeowners have shown that they will be irreparably prejudiced by the standard briefing schedule because of the need for a hearing date prior to the scheduled foreclosure sale date. The mortgage company has not provided evidence that it communicated with the homeowners about how to apply for any foreclosure prevention alternatives. The homeowners have established that the property is their primary residence and that they would suffer irreparable harm if the foreclosure sale continues.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Frimpong, Filed On: April 3, 2024, Case #: 2:24cv1529, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Real Estate, Restraining Order
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. 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. 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
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