News

Case Summaries

Consumer Protection

[08/18] Yabsley v. Cingular Wireless, LLC
In a claim that defendant-Cingular engaged in unfair competition in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 and misleading advertising by failing to inform consumer that a tax would be imposed on the full price of the cellular phone, judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) when specific legislation provides a safe harbor, plaintiffs may not use the general unfair competition law to assault that harbor; 2) a sales invoice Cingular gave to plaintiff stated the amount of the sales tax imposed on the sale and gave plaintiff notice of the amount of sales tax that would imposed; and 3) plaintiff had the right to refuse to enter into the contract for the price stated.

[08/18] Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's (FDCPA) bona fide error defense applies to mistakes of law, and is not limited to procedural or clerical errors. In an action claiming law firm and one of its attorneys violated the FDCPA when they used allegedly deceptive forms to notify her of a foreclosure on her home, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) although defendants violated the FDCPA by instructing plaintiff that she had to dispute the debt in writing; nevertheless, 2) defendants qualified for the FDCPA bona fide error defense.

[08/14] Gene & Gene LLC v. Biopay LLC
Order certifying a class of plaintiffs who alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. section 227, specifically unsolicited advertisements sent from one fax machine to another, is reversed where: 1) there was subject-matter jurisdiction over the case under the Class Action Fairness Act; and 2) plaintiffs had failed to advance any viable theory employing generalized, class-wide proof concerning the issue of lack of consent.

[08/07] Peck v. Cingular Wireless, LLC
In a class action lawsuit brought by a former employee against Cingular claiming, inter alia, it violated state law by passing a business and occupation tax (B&O tax) on to consumers in the form of a line item charge, dismissal of the suit is vacated where, contrary to the ruling below, there was no federal preemption of plaintiff's state law claims.

[07/23] Thompson v. Toll Dublin, LLC
In a matter involving various fraud-related claims arising from the purchase of condominiums built and/or sold by defendants, denial of defendants' petition to compel arbitration and stay proceedings is affirmed where: 1) the arbitration agreement did not apply to plaintiffs' fraud-related claims; and 2) the arbitration provisions were, in any event, unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[08/19] Fellner v. Tri-Union Seafoods, L.L.C.
In a class-action suit alleging injury caused by methylmercury and other harmful compounds in defendant's canned tuna products, grant of a motion to dismiss is reversed and remanded where: 1) the FDA had not enacted a pervasive regulatory scheme regarding mercury in tuna that would preempt plaintiff's state-law claims; 2) the FDA's decision not to require warning labels on tuna was not a conclusive determination preempting a state failure-to-warn claim; and 3) the FDA had not expressly rejected mercury warnings as misbranding under federal law.

[08/19] Joyce v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.
In a suit by shareholders of a telecommunications company alleging that defendant, while advising the company during its acquisition by another company, failed to advise plaintiffs on minimizing their exposure to financial losses, grant of a motion to dismiss is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part where: 1) plaintiffs were bringing a direct action on their own behalf, not a derivative one on behalf of the corporation, and to that extent had standing; but 2) plaintiffs' constructive fraud claim required them to allege that defendant owed them a fiduciary duty, but no such duty never arose.

[08/19] King v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co.
In a malicious prosecution suit alleging that defendant fired plaintiff without probable cause to believe that she had stolen train tickets, denial of plaintiff's discovery motion and summary judgment for defendants are affirmed where: 1) a determination by the System Board of Adjustment that plaintiff had stolen from defendant did not preclude litigation of that question in the context of the malicious prosecution suit; but 2) plaintiff failed to produce evidence of the date on which defendant had filed a criminal complaint against her, and thus would not be able to prove her claim that defendant lacked probable cause at the time of the filing.

[08/19] US v. Flaherty
In an action brought under the False Claims Act alleging that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided a reimbursement check to defendant as a result of a fraudulent scheme, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where qui tam actions cannot be brought pro se.

[08/19] Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc.
In wrongful death claims brought by plaintiff-estates against defendant rental car companies, grant of summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Graves Amendment, a federal tort reform statute which purports to shield rental car companies from certain vicarious liability suits, preempts the tort claims at issue; and 2) the statute is within the boundaries of Congress's Article I powers.

More...