Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

This case involves a dispute between Motorola Solutions, Inc. and Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd., two global competitors in the market for two-way radio systems. After struggling to develop its own competing products, Hytera poached three engineers from Motorola, who, before leaving Motorola, downloaded thousands of documents and files containing Motorola's trade secrets and copyrighted source code. Using this stolen material, Hytera launched a line of radios that were functionally indistinguishable from Motorola's radios. In 2017, Motorola sued Hytera for copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation.The jury found that Hytera had violated both the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) and the Copyright Act, awarding compensatory and punitive damages totaling $764.6 million. The district court later reduced the award to $543.7 million and denied Motorola’s request for a permanent injunction. Both parties appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the district court must recalculate copyright damages, which will need to be reduced substantially from the original award of $136.3 million. The court affirmed the district court’s award of $135.8 million in compensatory damages and $271.6 million in punitive damages under the DTSA. The court also found that the district court erred in denying Motorola’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of permanent injunctive relief. The case was remanded for the district court to reconsider the issue of permanent injunctive relief. View "Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd." on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between siblings Elizabeth and Jason Carter, who are both licensed dentists and co-owners of Carter Dental. In 2020, Jason accused Elizabeth of misusing the practice’s funds for her personal benefit. The parties agreed to mediation, which resulted in a settlement agreement that included a noncompete clause. Elizabeth later refused to sign a written mutual release, leading Jason to move to enforce the settlement agreement. The district court found the settlement agreement and noncompete clause enforceable and dismissed the case with prejudice. Elizabeth appealed, arguing that the noncompete clause and the settlement agreement were unenforceable.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court's judgments. The court found that Elizabeth was estopped from arguing that the settlement agreement was unenforceable because she had not appealed the district court’s dismissal of the case with prejudice. The court also held that the district court did not err in awarding attorney fees and costs to Jason and Carter Dental. The court concluded that Jason and Carter Dental were entitled to attorney fees and costs on appeal. View "Carter Dental v. Carter" on Justia Law

The case involves a group of bond investors (plaintiffs) who bought and sold certain types of corporate bonds from and to a group of financial institutions and major dealers in the corporate bond market (defendants). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated antitrust laws by engaging in a pattern of parallel conduct and anticompetitive collusion to restrict forms of competition that would have improved odd-lot pricing for bond investors. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case.Several months after the district court's order, it was discovered that the district court judge had presided over part of the case while his wife owned stock in one of the defendants. Although she had divested that stock before the district court judge issued his decision, the plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the district court judge should have disqualified himself due to this prior financial interest of his wife.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was tasked with deciding whether, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455, vacatur was warranted because the district court judge was required to disqualify himself before issuing his decision. The court concluded that while there was no outright conflict when the district court judge ruled on the merits of this action, § 455(a) and related precedents required pre-judgment disqualification, thus vacatur was warranted. As a result, the court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Litovich v. Bank of America Corp." on Justia Law

Broadway producer Garth Drabinsky alleged that the Actors’ Equity Association, a union representing theater actors and stage managers, unlawfully boycotted, defamed, and harassed him during his production of the musical Paradise Square. Drabinsky brought antitrust claims and New York state tort claims against the union.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that Drabinsky’s antitrust claims were barred by the statutory labor exemption derived from the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 and the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932. The court also held that his tort claims were barred under Martin v. Curran, a New York state case that requires a plaintiff seeking to hold a union liable for tortious wrongs to allege the individual liability of every single member.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The court concluded that an antitrust plaintiff suing a union bears the burden of proving that the statutory labor exemption does not apply. The court found that Drabinsky failed to meet this burden, as the union was acting in its self-interest and did not combine with non-labor groups. The court also agreed with the lower court that Drabinsky's state-law tort claims were barred by the Martin v. Curran rule. View "Drabinsky v. Actors' Equity Association" on Justia Law

In 2021, Florida and Texas enacted statutes regulating large social-media companies and other internet platforms. The laws curtailed the platforms' ability to engage in content moderation and required them to provide reasons to a user if they removed or altered her posts. NetChoice LLC, a trade association whose members include Facebook and YouTube, brought First Amendment challenges against the two laws. District courts in both states entered preliminary injunctions.The Eleventh Circuit upheld the injunction of Florida’s law, holding that the state's restrictions on content moderation trigger First Amendment scrutiny. The court concluded that the content-moderation provisions are unlikely to survive heightened scrutiny. The Fifth Circuit, however, disagreed and reversed the preliminary injunction of the Texas law. The court held that the platforms’ content-moderation activities are “not speech” at all, and so do not implicate the First Amendment.The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the judgments and remanded the cases, stating that neither the Eleventh Circuit nor the Fifth Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws regulating large internet platforms. The Court held that the laws interfere with protected speech, as they prevent the platforms from compiling the third-party speech they want in the way they want, thus producing their own distinctive compilations of expression. The Court also held that Texas's asserted interest in correcting the mix of viewpoints that major platforms present is not valid under the First Amendment. View "Moody v. NetChoice, LLC" on Justia Law

A mortgage company, Approved Mortgage Corporation, initiated two wire transfers, but the instructions for the transactions were altered by a third party. The funds were transferred to Truist Bank, which deposited the funds into an account it had previously flagged as suspicious. The funds were then withdrawn in the form of cashier’s checks. Approved Mortgage sued Truist, seeking damages in the amount of the transfers. The company asserted two claims under the Indiana Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which governs the rights, duties, and liabilities of banks and their customers with respect to electronic funds transfers, and a common law negligence claim.The district court dismissed the UCC claims due to lack of privity between Approved Mortgage and Truist, and dismissed the negligence claim as preempted by the UCC. The court held that the UCC does not establish an independent remedy and must be read with another section of the UCC, which entitles a sender to a refund only from the bank which received its payment.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the UCC claims, agreeing with the lower court that the UCC does not establish an independent remedy and must be read with another section of the UCC. However, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of the negligence claim, holding that to the extent the negligence claim arises from Truist’s issuance of the cashier’s checks after Truist credited the funds to the suspicious account, the claim is not preempted by the UCC. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Approved Mortgage Corporation v. Truist Bank" on Justia Law

The case involves a worker, Jake Johnson, who was injured while working as an electrician on a construction project managed by CBRE and owned by Property Reserve, Inc. (PRI). Johnson was employed by PCF Electric, a subcontractor hired by Crew Builders, the general contractor for the project. Johnson filed a complaint against CBRE, PRI, Crew, and PCF for damages. CBRE and PRI moved for summary judgment based on the Privette doctrine, which generally protects entities that hire independent contractors from liability for injuries sustained by the employees of the independent contractor. The trial court denied the motion, finding a triable issue of fact as to when CBRE and PRI hired Crew for the project.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, disagreed with the trial court's decision. The appellate court found that a written contract was not required to invoke the Privette doctrine, and the undisputed facts established that CBRE and PRI delegated control over the tenant improvements to Crew prior to Johnson’s injury. The court also found that no exception to the Privette doctrine applied. The court concluded that because no triable issues of material fact precluded summary judgment, CBRE and PRI were entitled to relief. The court ordered the trial court to vacate its previous order and enter a new one granting summary judgment to CBRE and PRI. View "CBRE v. Superior Court of San Diego County" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Mary Alice Keyes and Sean Leo Nadeau, who are the owners and agents of MonoCoque Diversified Interests, LLC, and David Weller, who provides aviation consulting services through his company, IntegriTech Advisors, LLC. Weller was discussing a potential employment relationship with MonoCoque. After several discussions and email exchanges outlining the agreed terms, Weller accepted MonoCoque’s offer and began working for them. However, disagreements arose over the terms of Weller's compensation, leading to Weller's resignation. Weller and IntegriTech sued MonoCoque, Keyes, and Nadeau, asserting various fraud claims and a Texas Securities Act claim against all three defendants.The defendants argued that they were shielded from liability by Section 21.223 of the Texas Business Organizations Code because they were acting as agents of the company and there was no evidence that they were seeking a direct personal benefit. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the fraud claims. On appeal, the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, holding that Section 21.223 does not abrogate the common law principle that individuals are directly liable for their own tortious conduct, even if committed in the course and scope of their employment.The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. The court held that Section 21.223 does not limit an individual’s liability under the common law for tortious acts allegedly committed while acting as a corporate officer or agent, even when the individual is also a shareholder or member. The court concluded that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the fraud claims against Keyes and Nadeau and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "KEYES v. WELLER" on Justia Law

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, specifically 18 U.S.C. §1512(c)(2), which imposes criminal liability on anyone who corruptly obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so. The petitioner, Joseph Fischer, was charged with violating this provision for his actions during the Capitol breach on January 6, 2021. Fischer moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the provision only criminalizes attempts to impair the availability or integrity of evidence. The District Court granted his motion, but a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings.The Supreme Court of the United States held that to prove a violation of §1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so. The Court reasoned that the "otherwise" provision of §1512(c)(2) is limited by the list of specific criminal violations that precede it in (c)(1). The Court also considered the broader context of §1512 in the criminal code and found that an unbounded interpretation of subsection (c)(2) would render superfluous the careful delineation of different types of obstructive conduct in §1512 itself. The Court vacated the judgment of the D.C. Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Fischer v. United States" on Justia Law

Derek Mesenbring, an employee of Industrial Fumigant Company, LLC (IFC), died after inhaling a toxic dose of methyl bromide at work. His widow, Melissa Mesenbring, sued IFC and its parent company, Rollins, Inc., for wrongful death. Rollins, as IFC's parent company, had some authority over IFC's revenue goals and certain expenditures, and also leased IFC's facility. However, IFC managed its own day-to-day operations, including safety and regulatory departments, and trained its employees on the safe use of fumigants like methyl bromide.The case was initially filed in Illinois state court but was moved to federal court under diversity jurisdiction. Mrs. Mesenbring dismissed IFC from the suit due to workers' compensation benefits she was receiving, leaving Rollins as the sole defendant. Rollins moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was not liable for IFC's acts under Illinois law. The district court granted Rollins' motion, ruling that Rollins did not specifically direct an activity that made the accident foreseeable, nor did it control or participate in IFC's use of and training on methyl bromide, thus foreclosing direct participant liability. Mrs. Mesenbring appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that under Illinois law, a parent company is not liable for the acts of its subsidiary unless it specifically directs an activity where injury is foreseeable. The court found that Rollins did not surpass the level of control typical of a parent-subsidiary relationship and did not specifically direct or authorize IFC's use of or training on methyl bromide. Furthermore, there was no evidence that Rollins foresaw that safety would be compromised as a result of its budgetary restrictions over IFC. Therefore, the court concluded that Rollins could not be held liable for IFC's acts under a theory of direct participant liability. View "Mesenbring v. Rollins, Inc." on Justia Law