Westlaw Journals weekly round-up

August 14, 2013

Westlaw Journals Weekly RoundupThe new Westlaw Journals blog brings you litigation headlines in over 30 substantive areas of law. Here are some highlights from the past week:


Bankruptcy purchase did not violate antitrust law, 11th Circuit says: A lawsuit alleging that the purchaser of a bankrupt steel manufacturer’s assets was conspiring to monopolize the coil steel market failed to define the relevant market of steel products, a federal appeals court has ruled July 15. Gulf States Reorganization Group did not adequately take into consideration, when defining the relevant product market threatened by the defendant’s attempted monopolization, the ability of other steel product manufacturers to make coil steel, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said. (Antitrust)

Internet TV service continues in New York after court refuses 2nd appeal: Public broadcasters lost another round in their New York copyright infringement lawsuit against an online streaming television service backed by media executive Barry Diller when a full federal appeals court refused to rehear their case July 16. Twelve judges of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition by PBS affiliate WNET, Thirteen and other New York public media outlets to reconsider a three-judge panel’s April decision declining to shut down Aereo Inc.’s streaming service. (Computer & Internet)

Judge tosses suit on Prius anti-lock brake system: A California federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit alleging the 2004-2009 Prius has a defective anti-lock brake system that can lead to braking problems on rough roads. On July 30, U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney of the Central District of California said plaintiff David Gelber failed to present evidence of an ABS defect or actual injury. (Automotive)

California high court OKs private action for insurer’s alleged false advertising: A policyholder can bring a claim for false advertising against her insurance company under California’s unfair-competition law, despite the state’s ban on private actions for unfair insurance practices, the state Supreme Court has ruled. The causes of action for false advertising and insurance bad faith the plaintiff raised here are “quite distinct” from claims for unfair practices barred by the Unfair Insurance Practices Act, Cal. Ins. Code § 790, the high court said in an Aug. 1 opinion. “The decision is significant because it exposes insurance companies to claims under California’s consumer protection laws … for conduct that is otherwise governed by the UIPA,” attorney Ronie Schmelz of Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP said in an email. (Insurance Coverage)