Mealey Publications™
TOP STORIES
SAN FRANCISCO — A trial court overseeing an asbestos case that produced a $10.1 million verdict erred in issuing a directed verdict on the sophisticated user defense in the case of an automobile shop owner and by failing to list certain potentially liable parties on the verdict sheet, a California appeals court panel said in reversing and remanding for a new trial.
HOUSTON — A split Texas appeals court panel on Oct. 31 affirmed a lower court’s ruling in favor of Exxon Mobil Corp. in a silica injury lawsuit brought by a worker who sandblasted railcars and contended that he developed pulmonary fibrosis because the company created a situation in which he had to perform an “intrinsically unsafe and ultrahazardous activity.” The panel held that the worker’s experts were not reliable.
CHEYENNE, Wyo. — A commercial insurer on Oct. 31 sued its insured trucking company and the company’s purported owners in a Wyoming federal court, seeking a declaration that the policy issued to the insured is void due to alleged material misrepresentations regarding ownership of the company and there is no duty to defend or indemnify the company in an underlying suit.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 31 set for argument a case in which Free Speech Coalition Inc. (FSC), a nonprofit adult industry trade association, along with adult entertainment industry petitioners, urge reversal of a ruling by the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that vacated an injunction of a Texas law requiring the operators of pornographic websites to verify that their visitors are adults, which the petitioners say “imposes a content-based burden on adults’ access to constitutionally protected speech.”
WILMINGTON, Del. — While a federal judge in Delaware held that a defendant online sports gambling company is the prevailing party in a suit brought against it by a patent owner accusing it of infringement, he said the company is not owed attorney fees or other costs because the case is not “exceptional” as defined under the Patent Act.
SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal judge granted final approval to a nearly $20 million settlement resolving claims that insurers including Allianz Global Assistance (AGA) violated California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other laws in relation to its online marketing of travel and event insurance, with the plaintiffs’ attorneys awarded nearly $5 million in attorney fees.
NEW YORK — Holding that a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the extraterritoriality of certain portions of the Lanham Act does not apply, a federal judge in New York on Oct. 30 entered more than $400,000 in damages against Chinese companies that toy and game manufacturer Mattel Inc. said infringed on its trademarks and copyrights related to the card game UNO.
ATLANTA — Saying two Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims challenging a 401(k) plan service provider’s retention of foreign tax credits (FTCs) “present issues of first impression,” an 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Oct. 30 affirmed summary judgment against the class, ruling that the FTCs were not plan assets and that the service provider was not a functional fiduciary.
SANTA ANA, Calif. — A federal judge in California issued final judgment as to all consumer class cases in the multidistrict litigation over the theft of Kia and Hyundai vehicles; the judgment came several weeks after final approval of the up to $145 million settlement for consumers who allege that design flaws permit thieves to steal their vehicles in less than two minutes.
LOS ANGELES — A California jury returned a defense verdict in a friction case against a company accused of assembling asbestos-containing brakes, finding that while the company sold such products, they performed as expected and their benefits outweighed the risks.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — New York State Telecommunications Association and other broadband providers on Oct. 30 filed a reply brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, urging review of the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling reversing a district court’s judgment that granted a permanent injunction barring the enforcement of New York’s Affordable Broadband Act (ABA) and found that the Federal Communications Act of 1934 preempts state regulation of broadband services.