Mary Hannah Lauck

This case involved Premier Pet Products seeking coverage under a commercial insurance policy issued by Travelers for defense and indemnification in a trademark infringement suit brought by Multi-Vet Ltd. alleging unauthorized use of the "GENTLE SPRAY" mark on dog collars. The court held that Travelers had no duty to defend Premier. The core reasoning was that the policy's Web Xtend Liability endorsement provided coverage for "infringement of copyright, title or slogan" but did not encompass trademark claims, and the underlying complaint did not allege an advertising injury occurring in the course of advertising Premier's products.

business & regulatory

In United States v. Bacas, the defendant was charged with speeding 62 mph in a 45 mph zone on a military base after an officer used radar calibrated with tuning forks to measure her speed. The court addressed whether certificates verifying the tuning forks' accuracy could be admitted without live testimony from the calibrating technicians, following the Supreme Court's Melendez-Diaz decision on the Confrontation Clause. The court held that the two certified certificates were admissible as nontestimonial routine maintenance records, distinct from the drug-analysis certificates in Melendez-Diaz, while the two uncertified certificates were inadmissible. Officer Michaels testified at trial about using the tuning forks before and after his shift, and the certified documents were prepared in the regular course of business. The decision rested on distinguishing these calibration records from statements prepared to prove an element of the offense at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Kamesha Barnette's claims against Brook Road, Inc. (doing business as Car America) after a car purchase fell through when financing was not approved, leading to repossession of the vehicle. Barnette asserted violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Virginia Consumer Protection Act, and Uniform Commercial Code, along with common-law claims for fraud, conversion, and breach of contract. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment by reciting the applicable standard, identifying undisputed facts about the credit application and lender communications, and examining whether the defendant was a creditor under the ECOA and whether its use of credit reports complied with the FCRA.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case arose from a failed 'yo-yo' car sale in which the plaintiff purchased a vehicle from the defendant dealer after being told she was approved for financing, only for the loan to be denied later, resulting in repossession of the car. The plaintiff sued under the ECOA, FCRA, VCPA, UCC, and common-law theories of fraud, conversion, and breach of contract. The defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings as to the FCRA, fraud, conversion, and VCPA damages claims. The court held that the 2003 FACTA amendments eliminated any private right of action to enforce the adverse-action notice requirements of FCRA § 1681m, and it therefore dismissed the FCRA claim while addressing the remaining issues under the applicable pleading standards.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability