Hinojos v. Kohl's Corporation
District court's dismissal of claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, Fair Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act brought by a plaintiff in a putative class action against defendant alleging false advertising, is reversed, where: 1) a consumer has "lost money or property" so long as false advertisements induced him to buy a product he would not have purchased or to spend more than he otherwise would have spent, and thus has standing to sue under the Unfair Competition Law and Fair Advertising Law because he has suffered an economic injury; 2) for the same reasons, plaintiff states a claim under the California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act; and 3) defendant' motion to certify the issues to the California Supreme Court both on the merits and because defendant only requested certification for the first time after oral argument.
Schwartz v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Co.
Summary adjudication and subsequent judgment for defendant-insurer on plaintiff's claim alleging deceptive claims handling practices to wrongfully deny benefits to some insureds is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiff-insured was never denied benefits; and thus, 2) plaintiff-insured lacked standing to pursue an Unfair Competition Law cause of action because the plaintiff-insured had not suffered injury in fact nor lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition.
Rajagopalan v. Noteworld, LLC
The district court properly denied defendant's motion to compel arbitration in a class action alleging violations of federal and Washington state law, where: 1) defendant was not a party to the contract containing the arbitration clause; and 2) the district court correctly concluded under Washington law that the defendant was not entitled to invoke the arbitration clause as a third-party beneficiary or through equitable estoppel.
Abraham v. St. Croix Renaissance Group
The district court's order remanding a civil action to the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands is affirmed, where: 1) there is no error in the district court's conclusion that the "continuous release" of hazardous substances from defendant's premises constituted "an event or occurrence" for purposes of the mass-action exclusion, that happened in the Virgin Islands and that resulted in injuries in the Virgin Islands; and thus, 2) the civil action here is not a removable "mass action" under the Class Action Fairness Act.
One and Ken Valley Housing v. ME State Housing Authority
Judgment for defendant in breach of contract action in which plaintiff-landlords allege that defendant wrongfully refused to grant plaintiffs certain annual increases in their Section 8 payments that subsidize low-income housing, is affirmed, where the overall limitation clauses in each of the housing assistance payments contracts allow defendant to withhold otherwise-automatic annual adjustments in contract rents where defendant determines, based on the formula prescribed by HUD, that further adjustments would result in material differences between contract rents and market rates.
Fox Insurance Company, Inc. v. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
District court's judgments in favor of the federal government in an action challenging the government's immediate termination of a Medicare Part D services contract with plaintiff, a prescription drug insurance coverage provider, is affirmed, where: 1) defendant properly terminated the Medicare Part D contract with plaintiff; and 2) the district court properly ruled that governing regulations authorized the government's demand for immediate repayment of a prorated share of the funds that had been paid to plaintiff at the beginning of March 2010 and that plaintiff would not utilize after the contract's termination on March 9, 2010.
General Dynamics Corporation v. Panetta
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals did not err in holding that plaintiff's use of partial-year asset valuation and subsequent blended rate in computing its retirement plan forward pricing rate was not in compliance with Cost Accounting Standards 412.
US v. Garrido
Judgment of convictions of honest services fraud, money laundering and bribery arising out of scheme to award city contracts are: 1) reversed in part, as to defendants' honest services fraud convictions, where, in light of Skilling v. US, the jury instructions erroneously permitted convictions on the unconstitutional theory of a failure to disclose a conflict of interest, certain counts are based on Skilling's unconstitutional theory of a failure to disclose a conflict of interest in a state disclosure form, and because there is insufficient evidence to support certain counts; 2) reversed in part, as to defendant Robles's money laundering convictions because they are predicated on the flawed honest services fraud convictions; and 3) affirmed in part, as to defendant Robles's bribery convictions under 18 U.S.C. section 666 because such convictions do not require the defendant to be engaged in an official act.
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.