Business Law

Soody Tronson is Founding Managing Counsel of STLG Law Firm, a boutique intellectual property practice recognized by Chambers as a top-tier boutique IP firm. With 25+ years at the intersection of law, technology, and business, including roles at large law firms, startups, and Fortune 100 companies, she counsels domestic and international clients in intellectual property, technology transactions, and regulatory compliance. Read more

As we close out the 2025 year, it is apparent that our world needs change and growth. The reports of violence and disruption have been overwhelming and those are just the ones that made the headlines. Read more

In PSP Franchising, LLC v. Surefed Plus, LC, franchisor PSP Franchising, LLC (“PFP”) sought a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against its former franchisee, SureFed Plus, LC (“Surefed”), and four individual guarantors (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging breach of post-termination covenants and trademark infringement. Read more

State laws immunizing healthcare providers from liability do not bar federal claims. Read more

In Morsey, the bankruptcy court granted the motion of the chapter 7 trustee (the “Trustee”) to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff Community Financial Services Bank, Inc. (the “Bank”) seeking damages for the Trustee’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty and negligence in his handling of collection of receivables comprising the Bank’s cash collateral pursuant to a contract. In essence, the bankruptcy court reasoned that the Bank’s claim would elevate the Trustee’s fiduciary duty to the Bank above his fiduciary duty to all other creditors, as well as hold the Trustee responsible for some of the Bank’s own failures. Read more

The following published decisions may be of interest to attorneys practicing insurance law: CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL Insured’s attack on his roommate “based on” gender and committed with malice and oppression was not a covered “occurrence” under a liability policy, even though the jury also found negligence. Read more

In an eligibility dispute in a Subchapter V Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan (the Court) ruled the debtor was eligible, concluding that debts asserted in a Qui Tam action against the debtor for alleged misuse of Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) funds were contingent and unliquidated.  Read more

In a Memorandum Opinion addressing a motion to dismiss an adversary complaint and for reconsideration, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the Court) ruled (1) that a bankruptcy court could entertain a class action claim for declaratory relief arising from violation of the discharge injunction and (2) that a private right of action exists for a violation of the discharge injunction.  Read more

In Doe v. Choice Hotel Int’l, Inc., plaintiff Jane Doe (“Plaintiff”) brought claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1581–1597, against franchisor Choice Hotels International, Inc. (“Choice”) and its franchisee GP4 Property Owner, LLC (“GP4”). Read more

Taking Offense, an association opposed to laws requiring recognition of transgender identities, filed a writ petition challenging Health and Safety Code section 1439.51, subdivision (a)(5)’s pronouns provision as facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment. This pronouns provision prohibited staff at long-term care facilities from “[w]illfully and repeatedly fail[ing] to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns,” when they do so “wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status.” After the trial court denied Taking Offense’s petition, the Court of Appeal reversed in part, holding that, under a strict scrutiny analysis, the challenged provision violates the First Amendment because it is insufficiently tailored to address the state’s interest in eliminating discrimination, and thus is facially unconstitutional. Read more