News Center

Case Summaries

Class Actions

[05/15] In re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litigation
In an antitrust action involving the scrap metal market in Northeastern Ohio, judgment and damages award for plaintiffs are affirmed where: 1) there was no abuse of discretion in allowing expert testimony based on allegedly erroneous data; 2) the fact that the jury awarded damages are below the figure mentioned by an expert witness did not mean that there was insufficient evidence since the jury was entitled to award damages based on expert testimony it found credible; 3) there was no "impermissible fluid recovery" since plaintiffs provided evidence of a class-wide aggregate injury; 4) there was no abuse of discretion in the certification of a class ; and 5) any error in instructions to the jury regarding fraudulent concealment was harmless since the jury heard evidence of fraudulent concealment dating before the earliest date of consideration set by the court.

[05/13] Bufil v. Dollar Fin. Group, Inc.
In a purported class action against an employer alleging violation of meal and rest break labor laws, a judgment entered in favor of employer along with a denial of plaintiff's motion for class certification are reversed where the trial court erred in: 1) concluding that issue preclusion principles should bar plaintiff's request for class certification under applicable precedents; and 2) finding that individual issues predominated over common issues, class members were unascertainable, and a class action was not the superior method for resolving the litigation.

[05/13] Estate of Pew v. Cardarelli
In an appeal primarily addressing whether a claim fell within the exception to the Class Action Fairness Act's ("CAFA") grant of original and appellate jurisdiction for class actions which solely involve claims concerning certain rights and duties related to any security, the circuit court: 1) rules that the suit at hand does not fall within such exception to CAFA jurisdiction, and thus it has authority to accept an appeal from a remand order; 2) grants defendant's petition for leave to appeal; and 3) reverses the district court's remand order on the merits.

More...

Workers' Comp

[05/06] Steed v. Astrue
Denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported a finding that claimant retained the capacity to perform light work and suffered only mild degenerative changes to her back; and 2) the ALJ did not err in its evaluation of medical evidence or in discounting claimant's credibility.

[04/30] Antelope Valley Press v. Poizner
In a case considering whether, for purposes of worker's compensation insurance, persons who made deliveries of newspapers for a newspaper publisher were independent contractors or employees, the court of appeals finds that the specific facts of this case and relevant case law supported a conclusion that the carriers were employees, and not independent contractors.

[04/29] Ramirez v. Murdick
In an action wherein plaintiff filed a Huffman claim seeking liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs for the late payment of worker's compensation benefits, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Superior Court did not err in its interpretation and application of Workers' Compensation Act, 19 Del. C. sections 2357 and 2362(c); and 2) although the Superior Court erred in converting employer's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without notice, the error was harmless.

More...

Trade Secrets

[05/15] Topps Co., Inc. v. Cadbury Stani S.A.I.C.
In an action alleging breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets involving a chewing gum licensing agreement, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where: 1) the licensing agreement was ambiguous as to defendant's entitlement to continual usage of trade secrets after the agreement's terminate date; and 2) extrinsic evidence did not weigh overwhelmingly in defendant's favor to permit a resolution of the agreement's ambiguity by summary judgment.

[05/12] Othentec Ltd. v. Phelan
In an action raising claims under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act and the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to present evidence that defendant had used a computer to withdraw funds he was not authorized to withdraw for an illegal or unauthorized purpose; and 2) plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to show that defendants were using plaintiffs' trade secrets in their manufacturing process.

[03/27] TSMC N. Am. v. Semiconductor Mfg. Int'l Corp.
In an action seeking to enjoin proceedings instituted in Beijing People's High Court in China pursuant to choice of law and forum selection provisions in a purported "settlement agreement" between the parties, denial of a motion for an antisuit injunction is affirmed in light of international comity and judicial restraint considerations.

More...