• CIVIL

Renato cappuccitti v. Directv Inc

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.(Decided on 19.07.2010)

Class action -Seeking the recovery-For canceling of subscriptions prior to the subscriptions' expiration- On behalf of plaintiffs - Under 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2) of the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005- whether the District Court hasjurisdiction on this subjet matter under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)?

Held, relied on the Case Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem the Court held that at least one plaintiff must meet the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement in the CAFA removal context. So the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) because the complaint failed to meet the CAFA's requirement that at least one plaintiff allege an individual amount in controversy over $75,000 and invoked the District Court's subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), which incorporates CAFA's provisions.

• DEFENCE

Bowers v. Wynne

U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (Decided on 21.07.2010)

Federal civilian employee's suit- The Secretary of the Air Force- Claiming gender and disability discrimination - Retaliatory termination-Challenged thereto - 1)Whether the plaintiff's claim can be brought to the District Court ?2)Whether the District Court errered in concluding that the court's precedent in Fisher and Leistiko applied to ARTs ? 3) Whether the Court was convinced that the ART position was materially different from the position of National Guard technician ? 4) Whether Plaintiff's claims would be barred?

Held, 1) Plaintiff's claim may not be brought because they arise from the position as an Air Force Reserve Technician (ART); 2) District Court did not erred in concluding that the  Court's precedent in Fisher and Leistiko, which held that the National Guard technician position is irreducibly military in nature, also applies to ARTs; 3) The Court was not convinced that the ART position was materially different from the position of National Guard technician such that ARTs could pursue remedies under Title VII or the Rehabilitation Act that are not available to National Guard technicians; 4) Plaintiff's claims would be barred because they challenge the conduct of supervisory military officers of superior rank, and thereby threaten intrusion into officer-subordinate relationships.

• INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT

Sensient Techs. Corp. v. SensoryEffects Flavor Co.

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals (Decided on 21.07.2010)

Trademark infringement action- Sales of lipid based flovour delivery systems- 1)Whether there is likelihood of confusion between the two competing marks? 2) Whether the plaintiff's Missouri law claim failed?

Held,1)After evaluating credibility and weighing the evidence no reasonable jury could find a likelihood of confusion between the two competing marks; 2)Plaintiff's Missouri law claim failed because the marks were not sufficiently similar under the "sight, sound, and meaning" test, and therefore there was no likelihood of dilution between the marks and there was no evidence demonstrating any sale or transport of goods under the Sensory Flavors name. Sensient failed to establish a triable issue of fact as to whether the goods were "used in commerce," and therefore the Court affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment on the Sensory Flavors mark.

Mge ups Systems Inc. v. General Elecric Consumer and Industrial Inc (Decided on 20.07.2010)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Appeal from the district court - Under Rule 50(a) motion dismissing Digital Millennium Copyright Act - For damages and injunctive relief awarded - Plaintiff failed to show its "dongle" infringed a right protected by the Copyright Act, 1) Whether district court erred in granting Rule 50(a) motion dismissing Digital Millennium Copyright Act violation claim ? 2) Whether defendants had the burden of demonstrating which portions of their revenue were not attributable to plaintiff's state law unfair competition claims ?

Held,the district court erred in denying defendant's Rule 50(a) motion on plaintiff's copyright infringement claims because plaintiff failed to show damages under section 504(b) of the Copyright Act; Under 17 U.S.C. §§ 504(a)(1) and (b), a copyright owner is permitted to recover his own "actual damages," including lost profits and "reasonable royalty rates," or what a willing buyer would have been reasonably required to pay a willing seller as a licensing fee for the actual use of the copyrighted material by the infringers and once liability has been shown, § 504(b) creates an initial presumption that the infringer's 'profits it attributable to the infringement' are equal to its gross revenue and defendants did not have the burden of demonstrating which portions of their revenue were not attributable to plaintiff's state law unfair competition claims and with regard to sales of providing service to UPS machines .

• CRIMINAL

US v. McCarty

U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals (Decided on 21.07.2010)

Conviction - Possession of a controlled substance- Alleged to have intent to distribute as he was found in possession - 1)Whether an arresting officer's suspicion was reasonably warranted and he was justified in expanding the traffic stop to ask defendant about the presence of drugs in the car? 2)Whether it was permissible for the officer to ask defendant basic investigatory questions at the time of the traffic stop and to expand the scope of these questions in light of his reasonable suspicions?

Held, relied on the United States v. Jones, an arresting officer's suspicion was reasonably warranted and he was justified in expanding the traffic stop to ask defendant about the presence of drugs in the car. When an officer develops a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity during a traffic stop, he has justification for a greater intrusion unrelated to the traffic offense so it was permissible for the officer to ask defendant basic investigator questions at the time of the traffic stop and to expand the scope of these questions in light of his reasonable suspicions.