The First District upheld a $1.2 million future-rent award because it compensated actual lease loss and the tenant did not prove greater mitigation.
A federal court kept a California lemon-law suit because the vehicle’s full purchase price and potential civil penalty plausibly exceeded $75,000.
A California federal court lacked personal jurisdiction over a Chinese respondent but could proceed against three specifically identified California hotels to address arbitral awards.
A California federal court lacked personal jurisdiction over a Chinese respondent but could proceed against three specifically identified California hotels to address arbitral awards.
The court held that the letter was a claim and granted summary judgment to Houston Casualty. Its substance communicated a demand tied to damages for which the insurer might be responsible, triggering the policy’s reporting requirement.
A federal court held that a Ram lessee’s Song-Beverly express-warranty claims were filed too late because she knew of recurring defects years before suing.
City of Calimesa v. Everest: Four-Year Conflict-of-Interest Limit Applies to Contract Challenge.
Snow v. Align Technology: Antitrust Plaintiffs May Test Claimed Business Reasons for Refusal to Deal.
A California federal court dismissed claims over an international watch-parts shipment because federal air-carriage law preempted the claims and the Carmack Amendment did not apply.
A jury may decide whether promises to return a failed deal’s $335,000 transfer support California promissory-fraud and conversion claims.
The Northern District preserved narrowly pleaded skincare false-advertising claims but dismissed theories involving unspecified products and statements.
A website-tracking plaintiff lacked federal standing because she did not identify sensitive information disclosed or a highly offensive privacy intrusion.
A federal judge held that a liquor-liability insurer owed a defense because its own investigation revealed facts creating a potential for coverage.
A Northern District court compelled arbitration of fragrance-sensitivity discrimination claims because the electronic rental agreements contained enforceable delegation clauses.
A Southern District court allowed Pattern’s co-founder to intervene narrowly so he can seek disqualification of Arlo’s counsel based on an alleged prior attorney-client relationship.
Barilla won summary judgment because “Italy’s #1 Brand of Pasta” described the brand and did not misrepresent manufacturing origin.
A federal judge dismissed a California contractor’s breach-of-contract and interference claims over 165 reassigned cable-installation work orders, ruling that unapproved ‘open’ work orders never ripened into binding contracts.
The CPUC could not retroactively demand millions under reimbursement rules that failed to give fair notice and that agency staff themselves viewed as unclear.
A California federal court dismissed claims that Annie’s fruit snacks deceptively promised fruit juice as the primary sweetener, finding the label truthful and the proposed interpretation implausible.
The court allowed most consumer and warranty claims over Walmart’s benzoyl peroxide products to proceed while dismissing negligent-misrepresentation and one unjust-enrichment theory.
A default judgment permanently barred a nonappearing defendant from using the PETER MILLAR mark and required surrender of infringing materials.
The Northern District of California certified a class of Lucid Group investors in a securities fraud suit, holding the company failed to rebut the presumption that its optimistic production statements inflated the stock price, and rejecting arguments that an index-tracking lead plaintiff was an atyp
A federal judge largely rejected Rakuten’s attempt to dismiss a class action by online influencers and affiliate marketers who say the Rakuten Rewards browser extension secretly overwrote their referral-tracking cookies to redirect sales commissions to Rakuten.
The Northern District of California denied Ouraring’s motion to compel arbitration against its former CEO, finding the company could not prove he ever assented to a separate dispute resolution agreement it never produced in signed form.