Cal Biz Lit

Microsoft Verdict in San Diego

One of my plans when I started this blog was to report on interesting verdicts.  Well, this is pretty interesting:  The jury came back today in Alcatel-Lucent's MP3 code patent case against  Microsoft in federal court in San Diego, finding for Alcatel-Lucent and awarding $1.52 billion in damages against Microsoft.  The Wall Street Journal's law blog has it here.
Wow.  How'd you like to be the one to call Microsoft on the phone with that news?

Sealed Records in California

The Legal Record and The Recorder  both have coverage today about an unfortunate big firm fourth-year associate who inadvertently disclosed a pleading that his firm had been fighting to keep confidential for months.  The pleading – “a complaint in a shareholder derivative action against former executives of Mercury Interactive Corp. -- contains explosive allegations against the executives and quotes extensively from e-mails in which the executives allegedly discuss backdating their own stock option.”  The parties had previously filed it “under seal,” but had failed to comply with California’s strict rules for filing sealed records. 

These rules appear at California Rules of Court, Rules 2.550 and 2.551.

More after the jump.

Phillip Morris USA v. Williams – How Will The Latest SCOTUS Punitive Damages Decision Play Out in California?

The US Supreme Court issued its latest effort aimed at curbing punitive damages this morning, ruling 5-4 that state courts violate due process if they permit juries to punish defendants for injuring non-parties.  At the same time, the Court authorized state mechanisms by which juries consider injury to non-parties for purpose of measuring “reprehensibility.”  In the real world of the trial court, this may prove to be a fine distinction without a difference.  But how will this play out in California, particularly in product liability cases?

More after the jump

Attorneys' Fees in Consumer Warranty Cases

Consumer Warranties in California are regulated by the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, appearing at California Civil Code section 1790 and following.  The act contains a very complex, very comprehensive set of rules.  While we most frequently see it in cases involving new cars, the law applies to most new consumer goods.  It is enforceable against manufacturers and retailers, although the retailers usually have upstream rights against the manufacturer.  There aren’t an enormous number of statutory defenses, and it was both good and fair to see the Court of Appeal expand one of them today.  And in an off-hand observation, the court may have done more than that.

More after the jump.

More on USERRA / Serviceman's Right to Return to Work

I blogged on this issue on February 12, awarding the San Diego Police Department, or at least some of its command personnel, my "What Were They Thinking?" award.  Here's more on the duty to hold jobs for returning service personnel from the employee lawyer's perspective at California Employer.  I have to admit, I have a difficult time seeing and "employer's" an "employee's" perspective on this issue.

Brief Guide to Arbitration and Mediation

Part of the target audience for this blog consists of two groups I spend a lot of time working with:  small to medium sized businesses, and  out-of-state businesses entering the rarified world of litigation in California for the first time.  Three questions I hear from these clients at least two or three times a year are (a) what is mediation?  (b) what is arbitration?  and (c)  what is the difference?

I'm hoping to have a white paper or longer post out on these subjects some time soon.  But in the meantime, yesterday's SF Chronicle, of all places, had a pretty good intro to the subject, which you can read here.

As I've posted in the past, forced, binding contractual arbitration is not always an unmixed blessing for companies.  But voluntary mediation is often a vital part of the litigation process. And voluntary binding arbitration is a dispute resolution tool companies in litigation should almost always consider.

This Month’s “What Were They Thinking?” Award

My partners and I are employers.  But here’s a case that shows why there are employment laws.  Wallace v. City of San Diego, freshly printed from the Ninth Circuit, is instructive on both the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”)  and the law of constructive termination.

More after the jump.

Commentary on Dukes v. Wal-Mart

Ted Frank brings his perspective on the 9th Circuit's affirmance of class certification in Dukes at Pointof Law.com.  He also has a good list of sources for media coverage at the bottom of his post.  He hit a little harder than I did -- calling the decision one that will be "long studied for its intellectual dishonesty,"  and noting that Judge Pregerson declined to even mention, let alone dispute, the dissenting arguments of Judge Kleinfeld.

Less opinionated commentary appears at California Labor and Employment Law Blog, where Brian Van Vleck agrees with me that this almost certainly isn't over yet.

Daubert Meets Wal-Mart, and Other Observations on Today’s Decision in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc.

As most readers will know, this case involves an enormous class action pitting seven current and former female Wal-Mart employees against the world’s largest retailer and second largest corporation.  The plaintiffs allege sexual discrimination under Title VII.  They have sought, and obtained, certification of a class of all women employed at any domestic Wal-Mart retail store in the past 8 years who have been or may have been subjected to Wal-Mart’s allegedly discriminatory pay and management track promotions policies and practices.  Everybody agrees that this would be the biggest pay discrimination suit of all time, and during oral argument on the certification motion, Judge Jenkins of California’s Northern District referred to the motion as “historic.”  He subsequently granted the motion, at least for the most part.  Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 222 F.R.D. 137 (N.D. Cal. 2004). 

The Ninth Circuit affirmed certification 2-1 this morning.  More after the jump.

Ninth Circuit Rules in WalMart Gender Discrimination Case

The Ninth Circuit has just affirmed Northern District of California Judge Jenkins' ruling certifying a class of more than 1.5 million WalMart employees, in a case often touted as potentially the largest ever pay discrimination suit.  More details after I review the 50+ opinion by Judge Pregerson.