Case Summaries
Commercial Law
[09/01]
Hollander v. Copacabana Nightclub
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought against several New York City nightclubs for discriminating against men on “Ladies’ Nights," dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the nightclubs were not state actors and thus were not subject to section 1983.
[08/31]
Sinoying Logistics Pte Ltd. v. Yi Da Xin Trading Corp.
In an action seeking to attach defendant's property in New York as pre-judgment security for a pending arbitration in Hong Kong, dismissal of the action for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court did not err in declining to fashion an equitable remedy in circumstances where it was clear that the original attachment order could not be sustained in light of Shipping Corp. of India Ltd. v. Jaldhi Overseas Pte Ltd., 585 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2009).
[08/30]
Princo Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In plaintiff's patent infringement suit related to two types of digital storage devices, recordable discs (CD-Rs) and rewritable compact discs (CD-RWs), claiming that defendant was violating section 337(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing CD-Rs and CD-RWs that infringed its patents, the International Trade Commission's decision that the doctrine of patent misuse does not bar intervenor-U.S. Philips Corporation from enforcing its patent rights against defendant is affirmed as, even if Phillips and Sony engaged in an agreement not to license the patent at issue for non-Orange-Book purposes, that hypothesized agreement had no bearing on the physical or temporal scope of the patents in suit, nor did it have anti-competitive effects in the relevant market. Therefore, the asserted agreement between Phillips and Sony did not constitute misuse and cannot justify rendering all of Phillips' Orange Book patents unenforceable.
[08/30]
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Chimet, S.P.A.
In Delta Airlines' suit for declaratory judgment seeking to limit its liability for losing approximately 100 kilograms of pure platinum shipped from Italy to Pennsylvania, district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is affirmed as the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant's motion to dismiss as the private interest factors affecting the convenience of the litigants and the public interest factors affecting the convenience of the forum weighed in favor of litigating this dispute in Italy.
[08/26]
Bankston v. Then
[08/25]
DPC Indus., Inc. v. Am. Int'l Specialty Lines Ins. Co.
In an action seeking additional insurance coverage against a liability insurer, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) nothing in the policy or an additional endorsement required that an insured property be actually owned or operated by the specific entity seeking coverage related to that facility; and 2) the record contained uncontradicted evidence that defendant provided indemnity coverage to plaintiff.
[08/25]
Advanced Body Care Solutions, LLC v. Thione Int'l., Inc.
In an action arising out of a contract that required a company to make minimum purchases of products in exchange for an exclusive license to market and distribute them, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly rejected plaintiff's argument that defendant's shipment of the defective ampoules breached the entire Licensing Agreement; 2) because the Licensing Agreement did not clearly express that the listed remedies were the exclusive remedies available to defendant, regardless of what the parties' intentions may have been, the Agreement did not effectively limit defendant's remedies; and 3) the jury's verdict, which did not exceed the amount of defendant's expert's calculations, was neither against the great weight of the evidence nor excessive.
[08/25]
Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. St. Paul
In a First Amendment action against the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, after the St.
Paul City Council enacted an ordinance prohibiting all billboard extensions, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where a refusal to remand in this situation simply retained the status quo and allowed the City to begin its legislative process anew.
[08/24]
Rexam Beverage Can Co. v. Bolger
In a commercial landlord-tenant dispute involving at a warehouse with a leaky roof, the replacement of which both landlord and tenant denied was their responsibility, judgment in favor of defendant-landlord on his counterclaim on several Illinois state law grounds is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) a conclusion that tenant was contractually bound to replace the roof of the warehouse is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded; 2) district court's award of $405,470 in damages for tenant's failure to replace the roof is affirmed; and 3) district court's Holdover Statute award of $1,156,232.24 is vacated and remanded for a determination of the fair market net rental value of the property and the assessment of a penalty equal to double that value for the duration of the tenant's holdover.
[08/24]
Curtis Lumber Co. v. Louisiana Pac. Corp.
In an action by a retail supplier of building materials regarding defendant's alleged failure to follow through on defendant's rebate promotion that plaintiff promoted to many of its customers, partial summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where the testimony offered by plaintiff fell short of the elevated burden for proving fraud by circumstantial evidence. However, the judgment is reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff alleged distinct injuries that would not have occurred had defendant paid rebates owed to plaintiff's customers; and 2) there was a question of material fact as to whether defendant's rebate documents misrepresented or omitted a material term of the rebate promotion.
[08/23]
Regal Fin. Co. v. Tex Star Motors, Inc.
In a secured creditor's suit for deficiency against a used-car dealer, the court of appeals' order setting aside the jury verdict in favor of the secured creditor in finding no evidence of commercial reasonableness is reversed and remanded where: 1) the jury charge did not alter the standard for commercial reasonableness under Article 9, as the court of appeals erred in reading the jury instruction on commercial reasonableness to require evidence of a reasonable dealer standard; and 2) evidence of commercial reasonableness here is legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict.
[08/19]
Leisure Caviar, LLC v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv.
In plaintiff's suit against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and two of its employees in their official capacities, claiming that the agency failed to act on a timely basis on five permit applications for permission to export 4074.05 pounds of roe worth approximately $500,000, district court's denial of plaintiffs' Rule 59 motion to alter the order dismissing their suit is affirmed as a claimant who seeks to amend a complaint after losing the case must provide a compelling explanation to the district court for granting the motion, and here, the district court did not exceed its discretion in concluding that plaintiffs provided nothing of the sort.
[08/19]
Fortune Dynamic, Inc. v. Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc.
In an action by Fortune Dynamic, Inc., the owner of the incontestable trademark DELICIOUS for footwear, against Victoria's Secret for trademark infringement, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) there was an issue of material facts as to whether consumers were likely to be confused as to the source of Victoria's Secret's pink tank top that read "Delicious"; and 2) although it was possible that Victoria's Secret used the term "Delicious" fairly -- that is, in its "primary, descriptive sense" -- a jury was better positioned to make that determination.
[08/18]
Consolidated Cos. Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co.
In an action against a commercial-property insurer seeking proceeds arising out of Hurricane Katrina-related damages, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where: 1) plaintiff was not required to draw a bright line in its evidence between loss stemming from property damage and loss stemming from market conditions; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant's motion to enter a remittitur adjusting the verdict downward by $3 million. However, the judgment is vacated in part where the district court informed jurors that the policy was designed to place the insured in the position that it would have been in if there had been no interruption, but the court did not allow jurors to make the reduction for charges and expenses necessary to do that.
[08/18]
PSKS, Inc. v. Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc.
In an antitrust action alleging resale price maintenance, a grant of defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly rejected the alleged market definitions of "retail market for Brighton's women's accessories" and the "wholesale sale of brand-name women's accessories to independent retailers"; 2) plaintiff failed to allege any relevant factors that would indicate a plausible anticompetitive effect; and 3) the district court rightly dismissed the horizontal-restraint claims as barred by the mandate rule.
