Case Summaries

Antitrust

[10/15] In Re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation
In a suit alleging that a settlement agreement between the patent holder for the antibiotic Cipro and a generic manufacturer violated federal and state antitrust laws, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) there was no Sherman Act violation because any anti-competitive effects caused by the settlement agreements were within the exclusionary zone of the Cipro patent; and 2) state antitrust and consumer-protection claims were properly dismissed as preempted by federal law.

[10/14] Chapman v. New York State Div. for Youth
Dismissal of plaintiffs' copyright and antitrust claims is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in dismissing plaintiffs' copyright claim on the basis that the contract at issue unambiguously granted the state defendants the right to copy plaintiffs' materials indefinitely; and 2) plaintiffs failed to allege a plausible antitrust market in which the defendants monopolized the trade for restraint services or engaged in restraint of trade or unfair competition with respect thereto.

[09/18] Mittal Steel Point Lisas Ltd. v. US
In an antidumping investigation, judgment of the Court of International Trade that less than fair value (LTFV) imports of steel wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago did not cause a material injury to a domestic industry is vacated and remanded where, on remand from a prior appeal: 1) the International Trade Commission (ITC) was not prevented from finding that the products in question were commodity products; 2) in cases involving commodity products in which non-LTFV imported goods are present in the market, the ITC must give consideration to the issue of "but for" causation by considering whether the domestic industry would have been better off if the dumped goods had been absent from the market; and 3) the ITC was not required to address the causation issue in any particular way, or to apply a presumption that non-subject producers would have replaced the subject imports if the subject imports had been removed from the market.

[09/12] Major League Baseball Properties v. Salvino
In an antitrust action alleging that plaintiff Major League Baseball Properties violated section 1 of the Sherman Act, summary judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) defendant failed to adduce evidence to show that the challenged organization and activities had an actual adverse effect on competition or that plaintiff had sufficient market power to inhibit competition market-wide; and 2) defendant's state-law claims contained no argument as to why the district court's dismissal was incorrect.

[09/11] AutoZone, Inc. v. Strick
In a suit alleging both federal and state trademark infringement over marks used for automotive services businesses, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where plaintiff produced sufficient evidence that, under the applicable factors test, there were triable factual issues regarding the likelihood of confusion between plaintiff's and defendant's marks.

More...

Probate Trusts

[10/09] Estate of Felder
In a property matter in which objector sought the deposit he paid as a defaulting purchaser of real property owned in part by the estate, probate court order is affirmed where the probate court properly allowed the estate to retain the entirety of objector's $48,000 deposit as damages under Probate Code section 10350 subdivision (e).

[10/01] Haneline Pacific Properties, LLC v. May
Grant of defendant's anti-strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP) motion is reversed and remanded where: 1) the gravamen of plaintiff's complaint did not relate to contemplated litigation but attempted at persuasion and negotiation between co-owners of property regarding how best to manage their property; 2) because the communications at issue were not covered by the litigation privilege, the anti-SLAPP motion should not have been granted; and 3) plaintiffs failed to develop an argument regarding entitlement to attorney's fees based on finding that anti-SLAPP motion was "frivolous" or "intended to cause unnecessary delay".

[10/01] Gustafson v. zumBrunnen
In a suit alleging negligence and tortious interference against a bank and an attorney for allowing the withdrawal of funds from a bank account that should have been part of a decedent's estate, dismissal for lack of federal diversity jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(c)(2), the legal representative of an estate suing on its behalf is a citizen of the same state as the decedent; 2) more than one person may be considered a legal representative of an estate for 1332(c)(2) purposes; and 3) under the applicable state law, a suit to bring property into an estate by someone other than the estate's representative was permissible only if the representative had failed to act to secure the property for the estate.

[09/14] Dummar v. Lummis
In a case involving the estate of the late billionaire Howard Hughes alleging that defendants deprived plaintiff of his inheritance by conspiring to cause a jury to reject a Holographic Will in 1978, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed where: 1) fraud and federal RICO claims were each time-barred; 2) a Nevada RICO claim failed to state a claim; and 3) an unjust-enrichment claim was barred by issue preclusion.

[09/12] Estate of Kievernagel
In a suit by widow for use of her late husband's frozen sperm to attempt to conceive a child despite signed agreement by late husband to discard sperm upon his death, judgment denying distribution of sperm to widow is affirmed where determining the disposition of gamete material, to which no other party contributed and thus another party's right to procreational autonomy is not implicated, the intent of the donor must control.

More...

Tax Law

[10/14] Keating v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
Tax court decision finding that losses from petitioners' horse-breeding activity were incorrectly deducted on their 1996-2002 income tax returns is affirmed where: 1) a preponderance of the evidence supported the respondent-Commissioner's determination that petitioners' horse activity was not engaged in for profit; 2) the court did not err in concluding that petitioners were liable for tax deficiencies assessed by respondent; and 3) any error in assigning the burden of proof would have been harmless under the circumstances, and there was no basis upon which to remand this matter for further proceedings.

[10/10] Wagner v. US
In a claim for the return of funds allegedly wrongfully levied by the government, summary judgment for defendant is vacated and suit is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where there was no basis for jurisdiction under the Internal Revenue Code sections permitting claims for wrongful levy or substitution of value, or as a general third-party refund action.

[10/10] Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles
In an action brought taxpayer-plaintiff challenging the validity of the benefits defendant-county provides to its superior court judges, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant-county is reversed where: 1) the benefits provided by the county were compensation within the meaning of section 19, article VI of the Constitution; and 2) the record did not establish those benefits had been prescribed by the Legislature.

[10/08] Jefferson v. US
In a suit to recover back payroll taxes for a day-care center which were assessed personally against plaintiff-director, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff was a "responsible person"; 2) plaintiff willfully failed to pay the day care's taxes; 3) plaintiff was not exempt from the trust fund recovery penalty; 4) defendant was not estopped from assessing the tax against plaintiff; and 5) defendant's failure to turn over evidence did not preclude summary judgment.

[09/29] Palahnuk v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
Respondent's determination of a tax deficiency on petitioners' 2001 federal income tax return is affirmed where: 1) the rules governing the calculation of net operating loss for regular income tax purposes also apply to the alternative tax net operating loss except where otherwise indicated; 2) sections 172(c) and (d) of the Internal Revenue Code effectively preclude net capital losses from inclusion in net operating loss, and section 1211(b) limits capital loss deductions to $3000 per year; and 3) nothing in section 56(d) of the I.R.C. alters the rules for calculating net operating losses such that petitioners may include net capital losses in the calculation of the alternative tax net operating loss.

More...