California Business Litigation Blog

Because it’s Halloween here is a short entry about a creeping vine. Apparently this case arose after a woman brought suit against her neighbor for allowing a vine to grow on her property which damaged her roof. According to his attorney James A. Murphy, In December 2006 Superior Court Judge Loren E. McMaster tentatively ruled that one count of intentional infliction of emotional distress be dismissed. He outlined his reasoning in an order, and merely summarized the reasoning in a poem, which appeared at the end of his ruling.

In a letter sent to the judge by Commission on Judicial Performance Staff Counsel Charlene M. Drummer dated Aug. 15, 2007, the commission notified McMaster of its decision to authorize an inquiry into whether action is warranted for his recital of a poem in a tentative ruling.

Judge McMaster complied with the commission’s Sept. 4, 2007 deadline to respond and a determination by the commission remains pending. Murphy, contends that the commission’s letter was not an accurate description of what had taken place and does not think further action by the commission is warranted.

Here is the poem:

Defendant planted a creeping vine
That crept and crawled and soon entwined
Itself in plaintiff’s roof, and made a mess
Causing plaintiff to suffer great distress
This lawsuit follows but leaves unsaid
Why plaintiff didn’t whack the vine instead

I believe, with very few exceptions (and this is NOT one of them) judges handle their difficult jobs extremely well and fairly. It has been my observation that most complaints about judges are made by lawyers who had not fully prepared for motions, hearings and/or trials.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation   Real Estate

Bookmark:

In a David v. Goliath story with a surprise ending, Transmeta and Intel have settled their mutually opposing patent infringement lawsuits. Intel will pay Transmeta a total of $250 Million; $150 Million now plus $20 Million a year for the next 5 years.

In addition to all pending lawsuits being settled, Intel will receive non exclusive rights to Transmeta’s entire patent portfolio (press release here). Transmeta gets an influx of cash and a guaranteed income for 5 years which will allow further research & development. Additionally, Transmeta can proceed without the threat of any additional patent lawsuits from Intel.

So who won? While it may be a little early to speculate, Transmeta is clearly better off than it was before the lawsuits were filed. Prior to this settlement, Transmeta’s market value was slightly over $40 Million. They have pretty much guaranteed their future for at least 5 years. In all likelihood, Intel will parlay their “investment” in Transmeta’s patent portfolio into profits which will exceed their cash outlay.

This is a textbook example of a settlement in a business lawsuit which not only stands to benefit both parties, but consumers as well.

One final note. Transmeta has 2 attorneys on it’s in house legal team while Intel’s in house legal team has over 200. I have long believed that in law, smaller is better because it allows much greater flexibility in litigation.

It’s nice to see that David won even if Goliath didn’t lose!

Continue reading "Intel and Transmeta End Patent Lawsuits With Intriguing Settlement" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation   Intellectual Property   Internet

Bookmark:

By the time you read this, there will likely be at least one more lawsuit filed against Apple and AT&T over the iPhone. While I believe that all lawyers are good and some are better, it is times like these that make me question some in the legal profession.

When lawyers take on a lawsuit where the plaintiffs are suing because the iPhone will do everything it was promised to do, but won’t allow use on other networks or with third party application software....it just ticks me off!

Good lawyers DO NOT accept meritless lawsuits!

In case you don’t know, the Apple iPhone has been sold to only work on the AT&T network. There were never any other promises in any advertising or on the website. If you visit the Apple iPhone questions and answers web page you will find the following:

Can I “unlock” iPhone and use it with another wireless carrier?
AT&T is the exclusive wireless carrier for iPhone in the United States. If you currently use another wireless carrier, you can choose to transfer your number when you activate your AT&T account.

One of the toughest aspects of my practice is meeting with people who think they have a case and telling them they don’t. Countless times during an initial consultation with a prospective client, I have to tell them honestly that they have little or no chance of coming out ahead in a lawsuit. Most people appreciate our integrity.

Knowing where you stand before signing a retainer agreement or writing a check means that both you and your lawyer have a better chance of reaching a favorable result in your legal matter. This is one of the reasons for success on our clients’ behalf.

If your iPhone won’t fly a kite or will not do anything else it was not intended to do…call someone else. But if you want an honest appraisal of your current legal issue (always at no charge), call me today at 818-461-8500.

Richard Oppenheim

PS Additional helpful information may be found in questions 5 and 6 in our resource document “Eleven Questions to Ask BEFORE Hiring a Business Attorney”. You will find it on our website Home page.

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation   False Advertising   Internet

Bookmark:

California Women’s Law Center Executive Director Katherine Lee Buckland admitted to purchasing certain skin care products in the belief that they were being deceptively sold and with the intent of suing. Originally Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Hess, sustained a demurrer joined by many of the more than 30 defendants (members of the American Herbal Products Association), and whom Buckland sued for negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment and violations of unfair competition and false advertising laws as well as the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Judge Hess also denied Buckland’s motion for a injunctive relief.

Buckland appealed, contending the trial court erred. She argued that her claims were legally tenable. The Court of Appeals disagreed.

Katherine Lee Buckland cannot sue for fraud, or under consumer statutes, because she did not rely on the alleged misrepresentations in choosing to purchase the products and did not suffer any “injury-in-fact,” Justice Nora Manella wrote for the Court of Appeal.

Simply stated, Buckland had no “standing”. Standing is a direct connection to a legal cause of action and was changed in California in 2004 by the passage of Proposition 64. Prior to that, the law allowed a private person not injured by an allegedly unfair or illegal business practice or by false advertising to seek equitable relief on behalf of the general public, which is essentially what Buckland stated she was trying to accomplish in her lawsuit.

Notably strange is that the.....

Continue reading "Court of Appeal Affirms: Plaintiff Cannot Purchase Products Solely as Reason to Sue" »

Posted by Richard Oppenheim | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Business Litigation   False Advertising

Bookmark: