Dane S. Field, Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Aloha Sports Inc. v. The National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n (Haw. Circuit Court) – KBS represents Aloha Sports in this case brought under Hawaii’s state antitrust statute arguing that the NCAA unfairly decertified the Seattle Bowl in order to disrupt a sale of Aloha Sports. Ms. Brantly successfully argued to the Hawaii Supreme Court that summary judgment should not have been granted on Aloha Sport’s Hawaiian state law antitrust claim against the NCAA. The opinion clarified the proof necessary for a plaintiff to succeed on an antitrust claim under Hawaii law. In a unanimous, 39-page, published opinion, the Supreme Court held that the lower courts erroneously required Aloha Sports to prove that the NCAA – while engaging in an unfair method of competition resulting in injury to Aloha Sports – actually harmed competition. The Hawaii Supreme Court also reaffirmed that a plaintiff may generally describe the relevant market without resort to expert testimony. A copy of the opinion can be found at http://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/SCWC-15-0000663.pdf. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the circuit court for trial.
Curtin Maritime Corp. v. Santa Catalina Island Co., (C.D. Cal.) – David Kesselman and Amy Brantly represent Plaintiff Curtin Maritime in this antitrust case brought under Section 2of the Sherman Act for conspiracy to monopolize the shipping of freight from the California mainland to Avalon.
Renaissance Ventures, LLC et al. v. Los Angeles Dodgers LLC, et al., Case No. BC69090721 (L.A. Super. Ct.) — KBS represents ticket brokers that were excluded from the market to resell Dodgers tickets after Dodgers entered an exclusive dealing arrangement with the plaintiffs’ competitor, Eventellect. The case alleges Cartwright Act violations for anticompetitive exclusive dealing, as well as resale price maintenance. It also includes an Unfair Competition Law claim, tortious interference with contract claims, and breach of contract claims, among others. The case is in fact discovery.
Power Analytics Corp.v. Operation Technology, Inc. d/b/a ETAP, et al. (D. Del.) – A matter involving federal antitrust, patent infringement, false advertising and related state law claims filed against our client ETAP (and other defendants) concerning software used for power grids in data centers and nuclear power plants. KBS serves as lead antitrust defense counsel for ETAP. KBS successfully moved to dismiss the antitrust claims on the pleadings. That ruling is now on appeal waiting a decision from the Federal Circuit.
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Random Tuesday, Inc., et al. (C.D. Cal.) – KBS represents Random Tuesday in this trademark and copyright infringement case brought by Warner Bros. alleging our non-profit client infringed Warner Bros. intellectual property rights with respect to the Harry Potter and Gilmore Girls entertainment franchises.
DotconnectAfricaTrust v. ICANN and ZA Central Registry (C.D. Cal.) – A matter involving the award of the generic top-level domain name, .Africa. KBS represents ZA Central Registry in defense of various business tort claims filed by an African competitor that failed to prevail in the bidding process with ICANN.
Steinbeck v. Waverly, et al. (C.D. Cal.) – A copyright infringement matter in which KBS and co-counsel represented defendant Dramatist Play Services, the licensee of copyrights in certain of John Steinbeck’s plays, against John Steinbeck’s estranged son and granddaughter.
Kofi Kessey, M.D., Ph.D. v. Los Robles Regional Medical Center (Ventura Super. Ct.) – KBS and co-counsel represented a neurosurgeon asserting whistleblower claims against a hospital for terminating his emergency call contract after he raised concerns about patient safety.
Market Lofts Community Association v. 9th Street Market Lofts LLC (L.A. Super. Ct.) – A matter in which KBS represented Plaintiff Market Lofts Community Association against some of the largest developers in Los Angeles asserting breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and related claims based on the developers’ wrongfully stripping away valuable property rights from homeowners.
Bararsani, et al. v. Coldwell Banker Residential Mortgage Co. (L.A. Super. Ct.) – KBS and co-counsel were appointed class counsel for a class of real estate agents and sales associates who alleged that they had been improperly classified as independent contractors instead of employees. The case successfully settled on a class-wide basis for $4.5 million.
In re Containerboard Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Ill.) – Horizontal price-fixing case in which Ms. Brantly and Mr. Stockinger represent Plaintiff class of direct purchasers of containerboard products. KBS’s efforts have contributed to settlements from five defendants for an amount exceeding $367 million.
Anderson v. County of Ventura (Ventura Super. Ct.) – KBS and co-counsel represented a opt-in class of social workers against Ventura county based on willful misclassification to avoid overtime payment. The case successfully settled, providing the social workers a $3.8 million recovery plus attorneys’ fees.
Folex Golf Industries, Inc. v. China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation, et al. (C.D. Cal.) – An international dispute involving business tort and unfair competition claims in which KBS, along with co-counsel, represent defendant O-TA Precision Industries Co. Ltd., a leading Taiwan-based manufacturer of golf equipment.
American Institute of Intradermal Cosmetics v. Society of Permanent Cosmetic Procedures (C.D. Cal.) – KBS represented a manufacturer and distributor of permanent cosmetic products in an alleged group boycott action against direct competitors and their trade association.
Alan Darush MD, APC v. Revision, L.P., et al. (C.D. Cal.) – A vertical price-fixing case in which Mr. Kesselman and Mr. Stockinger represented a distributor of skin care products against the manufacturer. The Court denied the motion to dismiss filed against our client, issuing one of the first opinions reaffirming California’s application of the per se rule relating to resale price maintenance after the United States Supreme Court opinion in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.
TiVo v. AT&T Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – A patent infringement case in which Mr. Stockinger represented TiVo, the developer of the first commercially available digital video recorder (DVR). TiVo sued AT&T for infringement of patents covering fundamental DVR technology. Mr. Stockinger spearheaded the team concerning damages, including working with experts to create a market analysis relating to lost sales.
SmithKline Beecham d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) – A case involving antitrust, contract and North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims brought by GSK, Mr. Stockinger’s client, against Abbott based on Abbott’s massive price hike of a drug used for the treatment of HIV/AIDS.
Masimo Corp. v. Tyco Healthcare Group (C.D. Cal) – Ms. Brantly was part of the team that represented Masimo, a dynamic healthcare company, against Tyco in an antitrust case involving challenges to exclusionary contracting practices, including exclusive dealing with OEMs, exclusionary loyalty discounts and sole-source contracts. The case followed a patent infringement litigation filed by Masimo against Tyco.
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., (Cal. Supreme Court) – Mr. Kesselman was part of the team that represented a U.S.‑based company against a large multinational conglomerate in a business interference lawsuit involving military procurement contracts in the Republic of Korea. Mr. Kesselman was the primary author of the briefs at the California Supreme Court that resulted in the landmark decision in Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Co., 29 Cal. 4th 1134 (2003). The case resolved after trial.
Tessera v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al. (E.D. Cal.) – A patent and antitrust matter in which Mr. Stockinger represented Tessera. The case involved group boycott and price fixing claims in the DRAM market, as well as patent infringement claims concerning semiconductor packaging technology. Mr. Stockinger played a significant role handling the antitrust claims.
Tessera Technologies, Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. (San Francisco Superior Court) – Ms. Brantly represented Tessera in an antitrust action against Hynix alleging a conspiracy to boycott in the DRAM market under California’s Cartwright Act.
Intergraph Corporation v. Hewlett-Packard, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – This lawsuit involved Intergraph’s patent infringement claims relating to HP’s microprocessor technology and HP’s antitrust counterclaims asserting that Intergraph engaged in illegal tying arrangements in the market for microprocessors and microprocessor technologies. Mr. Stockinger was primarily involved in representing HP concerning the antitrust counterclaims.
Universal Surveillance Systems, Inc. v. Sensormatic Electronics Corp. (S.D. Fla.) – Mr. Kesselman was part of the team that represented a competitor in monopolization and related antitrust claims involving the market for electronic security tags.
In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1663 (D.N.J.) – Ms. Brantly was part of the team that defended Lloyd’s of London Syndicates in an antitrust action alleging a conspiracy involving undisclosed contingent commissions and bid-rigging.
Flagship Theatres, Inc. v. Century Theaters, Inc. and Cinemark USA, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court) – Mr. Kesselman defended a national motion picture theater chain against alleged antitrust claims brought by a competitor motion picture theater.
Fisherman’s Wharf Bay Cruise Co. v. Superior Court (San Franscisco Superior Court) – Mr. Kesselman was part of the team that defended a transportation company in an alleged below cost pricing and price discrimination lawsuit brought by a smaller competitor.
International Oncology Network Solutions v. Eagle (District Court, Collin County Texas) – Ms. Brantly defended Raintree Oncology, an emerging health care company, against a division of Amerisource Bergen in a misappropriation of trade secrets case.
White v. NCAA (C.D. Cal.) – Ms. Brantly represented college athletes in an antitrust lawsuit against the NCAA involving restrictions on athletic-based financial aid.
Arminak & Associations Inc. v. MeadWestvaco Calmar Inc. (C.D. Cal.) – Mr. Kesselman was part of the team that represented a trigger sprayer supplier in a monopolization and exclusive dealing action against the dominant competitor in the market.
KSCD, Inc. v. AEG Infrarot-Module GmbH (C.D. Cal.) – Mr. Kesselman represented a distributor of military equipment against a subsidiary of Daimler in litigation involving the sale of infrared technology to the Republic of Korea.
Blue Sky The Color of Imagination, LLC v. MeadWestvaco Corp. (C.D. Cal.) – Mr. Kesselman was part of the team that represented a competitor in monopolization, exclusive dealing and related antitrust claims involving the dated products industry.