Business News, Commercial Law Case Summaries

News

Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[07/02] Deckers Corp. v. US
In a suit contesting the proper classification of three styles of sports sandals under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, a decision holding that the merchandise was properly classified under subheading 6404.19.35 is affirmed where the sandals at issue have open toes and open heels, and lack the features of the named exemplars of 6406.11.80, and thus the imported goods are not classifiable under that subheading notwithstanding their claimed status as athletic footwear.

[07/02] Cavin v. Home Loan Ctr., Inc.
In a suit involving a mailer sent by defendant announcing its mortgage program and claiming that defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to present plaintiffs' with a firm offer of credit, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the letter at issue presented a firm offer of credit, despite the absence of some material terms and the minimal number of consumers who obtained the loan; and 2) thus, defendant did not violate the FCRA.

[06/30] Waltrip v. Kimberlin
In a priority dispute between competing liens, by a judgment creditor and debtor's attorney, over settlement proceeds, judgment finding the judgment lien had priority over the attorney lien is reversed and remanded where: 1) the creditor had a lien which did not cover commercial tort claims while the settlement proceeds at issue stemmed from commercial tort claims; 2) the attorney lien was created by the retainer agreement between plaintiffs and counsel, and it was created before creditor filed a notice of lien in the pending action; and 3) the notice of lien did not relate back to prior liens, as those liens covered different property.

[06/26] Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish County
In a case involving wholesale-energy contracts and the Mobile-Sierra doctrine under which the FERC must presume that the rate set out in a freely negotiated wholesale-energy contract meets the "just and reasonable" requirement imposed by law, judgment granting petitions for review of FERC decisions upholding certain contracts is affirmed where: 1) contrary to the Ninth Circuit's view, the FERC was required to apply the Mobile-Sierra presumption in evaluating the contracts in this case and the FERC may abrogate a valid contract only if it harms the public interest; 2) the Ninth Circuit's "zone of reasonableness" test, used to evaluate a buyer's rate-challenge, fails to accord an adequate level of protection to contracts; but 3) nevertheless, two flaws in the FERC's analysis provided alternate grounds for affirmance.

[06/26] Absher v. Autozone, Inc.
Civil Code section 1747.08, which prohibits merchants from obtaining personal identification information from credit card users, does not apply to a refund for the return of merchandise purchased by credit card.

[06/24] N. Am. Freighter Car Ass'n v. Surface Transp. Bd.
Petition for review of a decision denying petitioner's challenge to "storage" and "demurrage" charges, which a railway company imposed in 2001 for empty private freight cars that remain on its tracks beyond a base free time period, is denied over claims that the charges violate three provisions of the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA): 1) 49 U.S.C. section 10702(2), which requires that a railroad "establish reasonable ... practices" related to transportation and service; 2) 49 U.S.C. section 10746, which requires that demurrage charges fulfill two enumerated objectives; and 3) 49 U.S.C. section 10745, which authorizes a rail carrier to compensate a shipper for providing a service related to transportation.

[06/23] Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. APCC Servs., Inc.
An assignee of a legal claim for money owed has standing to pursue that claim in federal court, even when the assignee has promised to remit the proceeds of the litigation to the assignor.

[06/23] Sheridan v. Marathon Petroleum Co. LLC
In a suit alleging that defendants tied the processing of credit card sales to the Marathon franchise, as well as conspired with banks to fix the price of the processing service, dismissal for failure to state a claim is affirmed where: 1) defendant did not have significant unilateral power over the market price of gasoline; 2) the franchise owners were not required to to process all credit card transactions through defendant's system; and 3) plaintiff's theory that defendant was receiving kickbacks from the banks that offer credit cards in exchange for overcharging its dealers for credit card processing failed to allege a plausible theory of antitrust illegality.

[06/20] Bores v. Domino's Pizza, LLC
In a contractual dispute over the terms of a franchise agreement, judgment is reversed where the district court ascribed an unnecessarily narrow definition to the meaning of a material term in the contract.

[06/20] California Nat'l Bank v. Woodbridge Plaza LLC
In an appeal involving interpretation of a provision dealing with calculation of rent for the extended term of plaintiff's lease of premises owned by defendant, a judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) the provision, interpreted from the parties' mutual intent at the time of contracting, was intended as a rent cap based on rent paid by a "financial institution" occupying a defunct bank's premises; and 2) because non-bank tenants were not the "successors" anticipated by the contract, their rent could not be used as a factor for calculating plaintiff's new rent, which is instead subject to the "then prevailing rate" as defined by the lease.

[06/20] Eberhard v. Marcu
In a case involving the authority of a federal securities receiver over property claimed by a third party, the circuit court rules that: 1) a receiver cannot employ a state's commercial law to set aside a conveyance when representing only the transferor; and 2) a third party is entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment to determine ownership of property claimed by a receiver.

[06/19] Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
In a class action against DaimlerChrysler alleging that it breached express and implied warranties and committed fraud in the sale of certain Dodge Neon cars containing defective head gaskets, dismissal and summary judgment rulings for defendant are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to allege that his Dodge Neon failed to perform as expressly warranted; 2) an implied warranty claim failed as plaintiff was not in vertical privity with DaimlerChrysler as required by state law; 3) thus, state law and the Magnuson-Moss Act claims were properly dismissed; 4) the statute of limitations barred a fraud claim; and 5) an Unfair Competition Law claim failed as defendant's conduct was not unfair within the meaning of the statute, and there was insufficient evidence that the gasket's failure rate was material to a reasonable consumer.

More...

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.

Business News & Commercial Law

News

Business

Intellectual Property

Litigation

Mergers and Acquisitions

Case Summaries

Commercial Law