Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[03/04] New York v. Golden Feather Smoke Shop, Inc.
In defendants' appeal from a preliminary injunction prohibiting the sale of untaxed cigarettes other than to members of the Unkechauge Nation for their personal use, the Second Circuit certifies the following questions to the New York Court of Appeals: 1) Does N.Y. Tax Law section 471-e, either by itself or in combination with the provisions of section 471, impose a tax on cigarettes sold on Native American reservations when some or all of those cigarettes may be sold to persons other than members of the reservation's nation or tribe?; 2) If the answer to Question 1 is "no," does N.Y. Tax Law section 471 alone impose a tax on cigarettes sold on Native American reservations when some or all of those cigarettes may be sold to persons other than members of the reservation's nation or tribe?

[03/02] Pfizer v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiffs' action against Pfizer, the manufacturer of Listerine mouthwash, pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law claiming that Pfizer marketed the mouthwash in a misleading manner by representing that the use of it can replace the use of dental floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis, defendant's petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn an order certifying the class action is granted as the ruling certifying a class consisting of all persons who purchased Listerine in California during a six-month period is overbroad, and In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), does not require a different disposition in this case.

[03/02] Ma v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
In an action against Merrill Lynch based on unauthorized transfers from plaintiff's investment account, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where New York U.C.C. Section 4-A-505, which imposes a one-year statute of repose on certain claims based on electronic funds transfers, bars plaintiffs' common law claims, which had longer limitations periods.

Read More

Corporation & Enterprise Law

[03/09] In re: Omnicom Group, Inc. Secs. Litig.
In a securities class action alleging that defendants fraudulently accounted for a transaction, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to prove loss causation because their expert's testimony did not suffice to draw the requisite causal connection between the information in the article at issue and the fraud alleged in the complaint; and 2) the generalized investor reaction of concern causing a temporary share price decline was far too tenuously connected -- indeed, by a metaphoric thread -- to the transaction to support liability.

[03/03] Teachers' Ret. Sys. of La. v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP
In a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of AIG for breach of fiduciary duty against PricewaterhouseCoopers under New York law, the Delaware Supreme Court certifies the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: Would the doctrine of in pari delicto bar a derivative claim under New York law where a corporation sues its outside auditor for professional malpractice or negligence based on the auditor's failure to detect fraud committed by the corporation; and, the outside auditor did not knowingly participate in the corporation's fraud, but instead, failed to satisfy professional standards in its audits of the corporation's financial statements?

[02/26] D&J Tire Inc. v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Co.
In an action by a minority shareholder for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of defendant-executive's failure to disclose that defendant corporation was in talks to be acquired when the executive served as a mandatary on plaintiff's behalf to redeem his shares, summary judgment for defendant is vacated where: 1) because Louisiana's prescription statute did not bar plaintiff's rescission claim, the district court needs to determine whether plaintiff could prove that defendant's directors failed to disclose a material fact; 2) because defendant's directors were acting in their official capacity when redeeming plaintiff's stock, Connecticut courts would impose a fiduciary duty to disclose material facts in this situation; and 3) there was no reason, under Louisiana law, to apply another prescriptive period merely because defendant was also CFO of the corporation when the claim was based on his duties as mandatary.

Read More

Landlord Tenant

[03/03] Fed. Ins. Co. v. Commerce Ins. Co.
In plaintiff-insurance company's subrogation claim, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in concluding that the implied coinsured doctrine controlled the outcome in this case and precluded the plaintiff from pursuing a subrogation claim is affirmed as plaintiff has not met its burden of proving that the "Responsibility for Damages" provision of a Residence and Care Agreement (RCA) overcomes the presumption that the landlord's insurance is held for the mutual benefit of both parties.

[02/09] Chacon v. Litke
In a wrongful eviction action, judgment in favor of plaintiffs-tenants concluding that defendants violated the San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance is affirmed where: 1) defendants' interpretation of the Ordinance as conditioning a tenant's right to reoccupy the unit upon compliance with a 60-day notice is rejected; 2) substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that the stipulation gave defendants temporary possession of the apartment for up to three months to make repairs and the plaintiffs retained their rights under the Ordinance to reoccupy the premises; 3) the litigation privilege did not apply to defendant's conduct in refusing to allow the plaintiffs to reoccupy the apartment; 4) trial court did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings on the affirmative defenses; and 5) trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiffs' attorney's fees.

[02/01] Woodlands Park Mgmt., LLC. v. City of E. Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Bd.
Trial court's holding that the Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance (RSO), adopted by the citizens of the City of East Palo Alto, permitted recovery of attorney fees by a landlord in successful litigation against the city is reversed as the intent of the electorate was that section 15.A.5 of the RSO authorize the recovery of attorney fees only in civil proceedings between landlords and tenants to enforce their respective rights under the RSO, and no other provision of the RSO provides for an award of fees against the city.

Read More