Category Archives: standing

Eric Goldman previews Lexmark

Posted on December 2, 2013 by rtushnet

At Forbes, here.  As is obvious, Eric and I part ways on several issues, but as always I respect his viewpoint. http://tushnet.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Posted in http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, standing | Leave a comment

lawyer who doesn’t mediate lacks standing against mediators

Posted on December 2, 2013 by rtushnet

Stahl Law Firm v. Judicate West, 2013 WL 6200245, NO. C13-1668 (Nov. 27, 2013) Previous ruling on plaintiff’s lack of Article III standing.  Here the court finds that the amended complaint does not address the deficiencies identified earlier, denies defendants’ … Continue reading →

Posted in http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, standing | Leave a comment

Lexmark post-argument panel at AU

Posted on November 27, 2013 by rtushnet

American University Washington College of Law  Program on Information Justice & Intellectual Property  Presents Supreme Court Series: Lexmark International, Inc. v.  Static Control Components, Inc. Tuesday, December 3, 2013 4:00pm – 5:30pm Reception to follow   Room 603 American University, … Continue reading →

Posted in http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, standing | Leave a comment

Reply brief in Lexmark v. Static Control

Posted on November 25, 2013 by rtushnet

Lexmark’s Reply Brief, to finish out the set.  Obviously I disagree, but I’ll limit myself here to one argument I think is disingenuous to the point of misleadingness: the equation of antitrust treble damages and fees, which are mandatory and … Continue reading →

Posted in http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, standing | Leave a comment

Retailer’s California claims against supplier proceed

Posted on November 22, 2013 by rtushnet

TRC & Associates v. NuScience Corp., 2013 WL 6073004, No. 2:13–cv–6903 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) TRC, a supplement retailer, sued NuScience and Lumina based on their sales to TRC of a dietary supplement, Cellfood.  TRC alleged that defendants misrepresented … Continue reading →

Posted in california, fda, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, preemption, standing | Leave a comment

Class ascertainability exists without purchase records

Posted on October 29, 2013 by rtushnet

Thurston v. Bear Naked, Inc., No. 3:11–CV–02890, 2013 WL 5664985 (S.D. Cal. July 30, 2013) The court certified a California class of purchasers of Bear Naked products marked as 100% natural that contained hexane-processed soy.  Of note, the court rejected … Continue reading →

Posted in california, class actions, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, standing | Leave a comment

AAI amicus in Lexmark

Posted on October 28, 2013 by rtushnet

The American Antitrust Institute’s amicus brief in favor of respondent in Lexmark is out. http://tushnet.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Posted in antitrust, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, standing | Leave a comment

INTA’s brief in Lexmark

Posted on October 17, 2013 by rtushnet

Stop the presses: INTA and I are in agreement!  http://tushnet.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Posted in http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, standing | Leave a comment

Static Control’s brief in Lexmark

Posted on October 15, 2013 by rtushnet

Available here. http://tushnet.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Posted in http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, standing | Leave a comment

Software update defeats class certification

Posted on October 15, 2013 by rtushnet

Waller v. Hewlett–Packard Co., No. 11 cv0454, 2013 WL 5551642 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2013) So I’m trying to cut down on California coverage and just give the highlights.  That said, I recommend this case for some of the most … Continue reading →

Posted in california, class actions, consumer protection, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, standing | Leave a comment