In Fisher v. Pelstring, plaintiffs William and Silbray Fisher brought medical malpractice claims against treating physician Dr. Mark Pelstring and various product liability, warranty, negligence, and fraud claims against drug manufacturers, alleging that Mr. Fisher's long-term use of metoclopramide caused him to develop Tardive Dyskinesia. After granting summary judgment to brand-name manufacturers Wyeth and Schwarz, the court considered PLIVA's motion to dismiss the remaining claims against it as a generic manufacturer on federal preemption grounds, along with related summary judgment and expert motions. Following the Supreme Court's decision in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, which addressed preemption of state-law failure-to-warn claims involving generic drugs due to federal labeling requirements that prevent unilateral changes by generic makers, the court directed and reviewed supplemental briefing from the parties on the preemption issue.
Mary Kay Inc., a cosmetics manufacturer, sued Leslie Ayres for selling Mary Kay products at flea markets in violation of an Independent Beauty Consultant agreement, alleging claims including trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act along with state law claims. Ayres failed to respond to the complaint or motions, leading to entry of default. The court accepted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granted default judgment on the Lanham Act claims for willful trademark infringement, awarded $16,078 in attorneys' fees and $593.30 in costs, and entered a permanent injunction prohibiting Ayres from using Mary Kay's trademarks or selling its products in ways that suggest affiliation.
This case involves a securities fraud claim brought by a shareholder retirement system against Sonoco Products Co. and two executives under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiff alleged that the company made material misrepresentations and omissions by failing to disclose price concessions to customers and the loss of a major account in its flexible packaging division, which artificially inflated the stock price during the class period from February to September 2007. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff could not establish material misrepresentation or omission, scienter, loss causation, or damages, and also sought to exclude the plaintiff's expert on those elements; the plaintiff filed counter-motions to exclude defense experts. The court denied all motions, holding that the plaintiff's expert testimony created genuine issues of material fact sufficient to survive summary judgment on each contested element of the claim.
The case involved J & J Sports Productions, Inc., which held exclusive rights to broadcast a boxing event, suing Brazilian Paradise, LLC and its principal for exhibiting the event at their establishment without obtaining a license. After the defendants failed to respond to the complaint, the court entered default against them. The magistrate judge recommended granting default judgment for a willful violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605, awarding $20,000 in damages plus costs and attorneys' fees. The district court adopted the recommendation in the absence of objections, entering judgment for a total of $22,688.66 against the defendants jointly and severally.
This case involves an insurance coverage dispute in which Auto Owners Insurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that its businessowners policy issued to Personal Touch Med Spa does not provide coverage for claims brought by former employees in an underlying state court lawsuit. The underlying claims include wrongful termination tied to alleged sexual harassment and battery as conditions of employment, battery, defamation, breach of contract, and false imprisonment. The court considered the insurer's motion for summary judgment asserting no coverage due to policy exclusions such as the Employment Related Practices Exclusion and Employer's Liability Exclusion, alongside the insured's motions to dismiss or stay the action pending the state court proceedings. The court denied relief on summary judgment at this stage, reasoning that the allegations in the underlying complaint do not clearly establish that the claims fall within the exclusions or that they arose out of and in the course of employment, leaving open the possibility of coverage under the policy terms or endorsements.
The case involved Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., which held exclusive commercial distribution rights to a pay-per-view Ultimate Fighting Championship broadcast, suing Scott's End Zone, Inc. (doing business as Jimmagan’s) and its principal Scott Sheedy for airing the event at their bar without obtaining the required license. The complaint alleged violations of federal law under 47 U.S.C. § 605 and § 553, along with a state conversion claim. After the defendants failed to respond to the complaint, the court entered default against them and, following a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granted the plaintiff's motion for default judgment. The court found the defendants liable for a willful violation of § 605 and awarded the plaintiff $15,000 in statutory and enhanced damages plus $2,904.99 in attorneys’ fees and costs, holding the defendants jointly and severally liable. The decision adopted the magistrate's findings in the absence of any objections and based on the record of the unauthorized broadcast.
