Case Updates

Claim and Issue Preclusion In ruling on the cross-motions for summary judgment, Judge Wilken began by rejecting Defendants’ arguments that the Grant-in-Aid Litigation was barred by the doctrines of claim or issue preclusion following the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in O’Bannon.Id. Judge Wilken began her analysis by recognizing that, for either doctrine to apply, the Grant-in-Aid plaintiffs must be the same, or in privity with, the O’Bannon plaintiffs.Id. at *5.Because the Grant-in-Aid plaintiffs consisted of at least two categories of plaintiffs that were not involved in the O’Bannon case—male student-athletes who were recruited… Read more

Bryan WangZelle LLP On April 5, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granted partial summary judgment to healthcare provider and consumer plaintiffs in the Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, ruling that agreements among the Blue Cross Blue Shield entities to allocate markets and limit competition should be reviewed as a per se violation of the Sherman Act.In re Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2406, Case No. 2:13-CV-20000-RDP, 2018 WL 1640023 (N.D. Ala. Apr.… Read more

By Christian P. Kerry On March 6, 2018, in County of San Diego v. Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (Pike), the Court of Appeals filed a published opinion, holding that, under Labor Code section 4656(c)(2), an injured worker is not entitled to either temporary disability benefits or full salary benefits under Labor Code section 4850—more than five years from the date of injury. This decision reversed the decisions of the WCJ and WCAB, which held that, under Labor Code section 4656 (c)(2),… Read more

Daniel Macioce, InternFederal Trade Commission In an action for false advertising brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Northern District of California District Court Judge John Tigar partially denied defendant 21st Amendment Brewery Café’s (21st Amendment) motion to dismiss.  Peacock v. 21st Amendment Brewery Café, No. 17-cv-01918-JST, 2018 WL 452153, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2018).  The decision involves a putative class action alleging that 21st Amendment’s website and on product labels, which feature a… Read more

Harrison (Buzz) Frahn, Steven D. McLellan, Justin J. CalderonSimpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP On January 25, 2018, Judge Denise J. Casper moved the parties in In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation closer to trial by denying motions for summary judgment from both sides.  No. 14-md-02503, 2018 WL 563144, at *1 (D. Mass. Jan. 25, 2018).  Defendants Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation (“Medicis”) and Impax Laboratories, Inc. (“Impax”) (collectively “Defendants”) argued that Plaintiffs could not carry their burden under a Sherman Act Section 1… Read more

Christina TabaccoZelle LLP On February 1, 2018, Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina certified a class of medical school faculty from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (“UNC”) and Duke University who alleged that the universities violated section 1 of the Sherman Act by agreeing to and enforcing a “no lateral hire” policy that prevented medical faculty from obtaining employment from the rival campuses and suppressed faculty wages. Seaman v.… Read more

On January 10, 2018, U.S. District Judge Gail Dein granted Sanofi’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. The plaintiffs, who are purchasers of insulin glargine products Lantus and Lantus SoloSTAR, alleged that Sanofi improperly extended its monopoly for Lantus and Lantus SoloSTAR by improperly listing six patents in the FDA Orange Book and by pursuing, and then settling, sham litigation against Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly). Read more

Bethany CaracuzzoPritzker Levine LLP On January 29, 2018, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District ruled, in Apple Inc. v. Shamrell, et al, 2018 WL 579858, that a California state trial court may consider only reliable expert opinion evidence on class certification.  This is the first time a California appellate court has held that Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4th 747—the state law equivalent of the federal Daubert standard governing the reliability and admissibility of expert opinion—applies at… Read more

Elizabeth T. CastilloCotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP On January 23, 2018, in a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court abused its discretion in certifying a nationwide settlement class by failing to perform a “rigorous predominance analysis” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 23(b)(3) to “determine whether variations in state consumer protection laws, or individual factual questions regarding exposure to the misleading statements, precluded certification.”  In re Hyundai and Kia… Read more

Harrison (Buzz) Frahn, Jennifer S. Palmer, Alexander S. Moser Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett LLP On January 2, 2018, Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of California turned up the heat on defendants in In re Korean Ramen Antitrust Litigation , denying their motions for summary judgment and ruling in favor of plaintiffs on several evidentiary questions.  Defendants Nongshim Co., Ltd., Nongshim America, Inc. (collectively Nongshim), Ottogi Co., Ltd., and Ottogi America, Inc. (collectively Ottogi) moved for summary judgment on both procedural… Read more