Employment Law News & Resources for Employers

Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[11/18] Surrey v. TrueBeginnings
In a case of first impression in California involving an online matchmaking service, someone who presents him or herself to a business with the intent of purchasing its services or products, but becomes aware of that business's practice of charging different amounts for such services or products based on gender and thereafter does not purchase those services or products, is not aggrieved by that practice so as to have standing to sue for violations of the Unruh Act and the Gender Tax Repeal Act. The court adopts a bright-line rule that a person must tender the purchase price for a business's services or products in order to have standing to sue it for alleged discriminatory practices relating thereto.

[11/14] Cadles of Grassy Meadows II, LLC v. Goldner
Petition for panel rehearing granted, prior opinion withdrawn, and matter remanded for further proceedings in light of Kerlin v. Sauceda, 05-0653 (Tex. October 10, 2008).

[11/12] Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales & Mktg.
In an action alleging, inter alia, copyright and trademark infringement involving the original and remade motion pictures "Gone in 60 Seconds", as well as products relating to the film, summary judgment for defendants is vacated where the district court erred in: 1) refusing to use extrinsic evidence submitted by plaintiffs to aid in its interpretation of an agreement between the parties, finding that such evidence did not show that the agreement was reasonably susceptible to plaintiffs' interpretation; 2) interpreting disputed language in an agreement between plaintiff and a non-party corporation; 3) applying the wrong legal standard in finding that plaintiffs did not have statutory standing to assert trademark infringement and unfair competition claims; and 4) concluding that plaintiffs did not have statutory or Article III standing to assert claims for declaratory relief.

[11/12] Hoopes v. Dolan
In a suit by plaintiff-commercial tenant against his landlord for exclusive parking rights under his lease, a judgment for defendants despite a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the trial court erred in disregarding the jury's verdict when fashioning equitable relief founded on the same evidence and the same operative facts as the verdict; 2) however, the defense of equitable estoppel was a matter within the exclusive province of the trial judge and it raised legal and factual issues undecided by the jury; and 3) while the trial court should have considered the equitable defense first, the order of trial was within the court's discretion and did not divest the judge of his duty to determine applicability of equitable estoppel.

[11/10] Bus. Sys. Eng'g, Inc. v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp.
In a diversity suit alleging a breach of contract when defendant allegedly failed to utilize and pay for the full value of work agreed upon with plaintiff, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where only individual statements of work and their corresponding purchase orders constituted contractual agreements between the parties, and no other enforceable agreements existed.

More...

Education

[11/20] Newark Parents Ass'n v. Newark Pub. Sch.
In a putative class action by parents of students alleging that defendant-school district was failing to live up to its obligations under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA), dismissal of claims is affirmed where the notice and supplemental-education-services provisions of NCLBA did not confer a private right of action upon aggrieved individuals.

[11/18] Stover v. Hattiesburg Pub. Sch. Dist.
In an employee's suit alleging race and sex discrimination, retaliation, and violation of the Equal Pay Act, judgment for defendant and denial of a new trial motion are affirmed where: 1) defendant was entitled to summary judgment on a constructive-discharge claim; 2) there was no reversible error in several challenged evidentiary rulings; 3) a "same actor" jury instruction was a correct statement of the law; and 4) there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. Award of attorney's fees is reversed as the award was improperly calculated and defendant was not entitled to attorney's fees.

[11/18] Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy Ctr., LLC
In a suit against an electric utility and an air-quality-management district under the Clean Air Act, seeking to halt the construction of a power plant, denial of a preliminary injunction and dismissal with prejudice of all claims are affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal of some claims presented the appellate court with a final order over which it had jurisdiction; and 2) the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims.

[11/07] In Re: Series 7 Broker Qualification Exam Scoring Litig.
In a class action asserting breach of contract, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation by the administrator of the broker qualification exam arising out of erroneous reporting of applicants' scores, dismissal of claims is affirmed where common law causes of action cannot be alleged against a Self-Regulatory Organization for the negligent performance of its duties under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

[11/05] Humphries v. County of Los Angeles
California's maintenance of the California's Child Abuse Central Index (CACI), which is a database of known or suspected child abusers, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because identified individuals are not given a fair opportunity to challenge the allegations against them.

More...

Entertainment

[11/12] Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales & Mktg.
In an action alleging, inter alia, copyright and trademark infringement involving the original and remade motion pictures "Gone in 60 Seconds", as well as products relating to the film, summary judgment for defendants is vacated where the district court erred in: 1) refusing to use extrinsic evidence submitted by plaintiffs to aid in its interpretation of an agreement between the parties, finding that such evidence did not show that the agreement was reasonably susceptible to plaintiffs' interpretation; 2) interpreting disputed language in an agreement between plaintiff and a non-party corporation; 3) applying the wrong legal standard in finding that plaintiffs did not have statutory standing to assert trademark infringement and unfair competition claims; and 4) concluding that plaintiffs did not have statutory or Article III standing to assert claims for declaratory relief.

[11/05] E.S.S. Entm't 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc.
In an action brought by the operator of a strip club in Los Angeles against the producer of a video game in the "Grand Theft Auto" series claiming, inter alia, that the game's depiction of a strip club called the "Pig Pen" infringed its trademark and trade dress associated with the "Play Pen", summary judgment for defendant-game producer is affirmed where: 1) modification of plaintiff's trademark was not explicitly misleading and was thus protected by the First Amendment; and 2) the First Amendment defense applies equally to plaintiff's state law claims as to its Lanham Act claim.

[10/29] Bernardi v. County of Monterey
Order awarding attorney's fees under Government Code section 6259(d) is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the lodestar amount, calculated by multiplying the number of attorney, law student and paralegal hours by the hourly market rate for each of their services, should have been reduced by two-thirds to reflect plaintiff's partial success, which the defendant described as a "lack of success on two of [her] three central demands"; and 2) plaintiff was not entitled to a lodestar enhancement in light of her partial success.

[10/21] US v. McTiernan
In a case involving an alleged former client of notorius Hollywood private investigator Anthony Pellicano, conviction for making a false statement to an FBI agent is vacated and the case remanded where: 1) a defendant can show fair and just reason to allow withdrawal of a guilty plea by showing that proper legal advice on the suppressibility of evidence could plausibly have motivated a reasonable person not to have pled guilty; 2) defendant's plea was elicited by a recording previously made by Pellicano which contradicted defendant's statements to the FBI; and 3) recordings made with the intent to violate state or federal law are suppressible under 18 U.S.C. section 2511.

[10/10] Licciardello v. Lovelady
In an action for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act brought by a Christian musician and entertainer against his former manager, grant of motion to dismiss for lack of persona jurisdiction is reversed and remanded where: 1) the Constitution was not offended by the exercise of Florida's longarm statute to effect personal jurisdiction over defendant because his intentional conduct in his state of residence was calculated to cause injury to plaintiff in Florida; and 2) the Constitution was not offended by Florida's assertion of its jurisdiction over such nonresident tortfeasors.

More...