Case Summaries
Commercial Law
[06/04] Unlimited Adjusting Group, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
In a statutory negligence action brought under California Uniform Commercial Code sec. 3404 (b)(i) and (d) alleging that Wells Fargo failed to exercise ordinary care when it allowed the perpetrator of a fraud to deposit plaintiffs' checks in his account, trial court judgment against plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the court erred in its jury instructions, confusing the concepts of the California Uniform Commercial Code and applying UCC sec. 3110 (a) instead of sec. 3404 (b)(i); and 2) the court's error in instructing the jury was harmless as the undisputed evidence at trial established defendant was not negligent under UCC sec. 3404 (d) and plaintiffs cannot recover under the statute.
[06/03] Independence News, Inc. v. Charlotte
In a First Amendment challenge to an adult bookstore zoning ordinance, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed where the ordinance did not ban adult establishments altogether, but merely required that such establishments be located certain distances from protected uses.
[05/29] Valentine Capital Asset Mgmt., Inc. v. Agahi
Trial court order denying defendant's motion to compel arbitration and request for a stay of proceedings is affirmed where defendant failed to show the dispute arose out of the business activities between the parties as associated persons of a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority member and is thus subject to arbitration under FINRA Rule 3200.
[05/29] Bridgeport & Port Jefferson Steamboat Co. v. Bridgeport Port Auth.
District court judgment declaring a fee imposed on ferry passengers unconstitutional and enjoining collection of the fee until revised is affirmed where: 1) the existing fee violated the Commerce Clause, as defendant failed to show that using a portion of the passenger fees to pay for services was based on a fair approximation of the ferry passengers' use; and 2) the fee violated the Tonnage Clause, as it was used for the impermissible purpose of raising general revenues and for projects which did not benefit the ferry passengers.
[05/28] Nat'l Assoc. of Optometrists & Opticians v. Brown
In a dormant Commerce Clause challenge to state laws preventing opticians from having specified business relationships with or offering services in the same locations as licensed optometrists and ophthalmologists, summary judgment for Plaintiffs is reversed where the laws did not discriminate between similarly situated medical professionals.
[05/21] Metcalfe v. Renaissance Marine, Inc.
In a suit alleging breach of warranty and other contract claims, district court judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction is reversed and remanded where the court failed to to apply the correct standard for evaluating personal jurisdiction in the motion to dismiss stage and construe disputed facts in favor of the plaintiffs. Under the correct standard, plaintiff's did make a prima facie showing that the Virgin Islands long-arm statute applied to defendant and the exercise of jurisdiction over defendant is consistent with the Due Process Clause.
[05/18] In re Tobacco II Cases
In a class action involving the advertising practices of the tobacco industry, trial court order granting defendants' decertification motion is reversed and remanded where: 1) Proposition 64 does not impose Bus. & Prof. Code sec. 17204's standing requirements on absent class members in a unfair competition law class action where class requirements have otherwise been found to exist; and 2) a plaintiff must plead and prove actual reliance to satisfy the standing requirement of sec. 17204, but is not required to necessarily plead and prove individualized reliance on specific misrepresentations or false statements where those misrepresentations and false statements were part of an extensive and long-term advertising campaign.
Read More
