Case Updates

Owner of mortgaged property may not sue to stop foreclosure based on a claim that the trust deed was not properly assigned to the foreclosing beneficiary. Read more

Court was unwilling to expand the bank's duties to include investigating and disclosing possible fraudulent activity and found bank's nonsuit was properly granted. Read more

Ready, Set, Action. The latest episode of the Flagship antitrust saga has been released this month! A three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal, Second District in Los Angeles, reversed the $3.5 million judgment awarded to Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert, LLC (Flagship) against Cinemark USA, Inc. and its subsidiary Century Theatres, Inc. (collectively, Century). (Flagship Theatres of Palm Desert LLC v. Century Theatres Inc. et al. (2020), case B292609 and B299014 (Flagship)) Read more

When selecting lead class counsel in complex class action cases, Rule 23(g)(1)(A) of the Fed Rules of Civ. P. states that the court must consider, among other factors, “counsel’s experience in handling class actions,” “knowledge of applicable law” and ”the resources that counsel will commit to representing the class.” Read more

On July 30, 2020, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the Northern District of California certified a class of indirect purchasers seeking damages for Sutter Health’s alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Cartwright Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. Sidibe v. Sutter Health, No. 12-cv-04854-LB, 2020 WL 4368221 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 30, 2020) (“Sidibe II”). Read more

The recent decision out of the Northern District of California in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 20-cv-5640, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154321 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2020), sheds light on the standard for granting preliminary injunctive relief in antitrust cases. In an August 24, 2020 order, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted in part and denied in part Epic Games, Inc.’s (“Epic”) motion for a temporary restraining order against Apple Inc. (“Apple”). Read more

As many anticipated, the Ninth Circuit reversed Judge Koh’s ruling that Qualcomm, Inc. had an antitrust duty to deal with its rival chip makers. The panel criticized Judge Koh for focusing on harm to downstream original equipment manufacturer (OEM) customers rather than on actual anticompetitive effects in the purportedly restrained chip market and rejected Judge Koh’s reliance on the smallest saleable unit test underlying her conclusion that Qualcomm’s royalty rates were unreasonably high. Read more

This Supreme Court of California case addressed the legal standards that applied when Biogen, Inc. (Biogen) settled a patent dispute with Ixchel related to the use of a compound (DMF) dimethyl fumerate that required Ixchel to terminate an at-will contract it had with Forward Pharma (Forward) under which Ixchel Pharma (Ixchel) and Forward were working together to develop a drug using DMF. Read more

In calculating the deficiency amount of a judgment following a foreclosure sale, the court properly deducted from the amount due the greater of (a) the fair market value as of the date of the foreclosure sale or (b) the sale price of the property. Read more

The discovery rule does not apply to toll the statute of limitations to enforce a note payable on demand, as set forth in UCC § 3-118(b). Read more