ETHICS & ATTORNEY'S FEES CASES

• Sloane v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC
• Doe v. Chao
• Gadda v. State Bar of California
• Tahara v. Matson Terminals, Inc.
• Applied Info. Sciences Corp. v. eBay, Inc.
• Melea, Ltd. v. Jawer SA
• Campaign for Responsible Transplantation v. FDA
• Mitchell Land & Improvement Co. v. Risorante Ferantelli, Inc.

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 27, 2007
Sloane v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 06-2044
In action against credit reporting service for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, judgment for plaintiff is reversed in part where the emotional distress award was excessive and must be reduced, and the grant of attorney's fees is vacated to allow defendant to submit an opposition. Read more...

U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 28, 2007
Doe v. Chao, No. 06-2015
An award of attorney's fees to one plaintiff under the Privacy Act is reversed where it was directly contrary to the mandate of the court of appeals. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 27, 2007
Gadda v. State Bar of California, No. 06-15344
In a disbarred attorney's suit against the State Bar of California and various other parties challenging his disbarment and the Bar's ability to collect disbarment costs from him, grant of defendants' motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings is affirmed where the retroactive application of the 2003 amendment to section 6080.10 of the California Business and Professions Code violates neither the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Ex Post Facto Clause. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 27, 2007
Tahara v. Matson Terminals, Inc., No. 05-17306
An amount of attorney's fees awarded to plaintiff for work his attorney allegedly performed to secure a late payment award under section 914(f) of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) from plaintiff's former employer is affirmed where the district court properly excluded fees not available under section 928(c) of the LHWCA and appropriately exercised its discretion in excluding duplicative fees. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 28, 2007
Applied Info. Sciences Corp. v. eBay, Inc., No. 05-56123, 05-56549
In order for an owner of a federally registered trademark to mount an infringement action against a user of the trademarked name on goods or services that are not the same as those specified in the owner's trademark registration, the plaintiff must establish a valid, protectable interest in order to proceed to the second prong of the trademark infringement analysis, the likelihood of confusion resulting from the defendant's alleged infringing use. Once a protectable interest is established by proving plaintiff is the owner of a registered trademark, the owner does not additionally have to show that the defendant's allegedly confusing use involves the same goods or services listed in the registration. Read more...

U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 26, 2007
Melea, Ltd. v. Jawer SA, No. 07-1127
In a suit brought by a Gibraltar corporation against a Swiss corporation that managed its finances, alleging that defendant breached its fiduciary duties by permitting a Colorado lawyer to overcharge for legal services and misappropriate funds from plaintiff, grant of defendant's motion for dismissal is affirmed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant's motion for "just damages, including attorney's fees and costs" under Swiss law is remanded for further proceedings. Read more...

U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, December 28, 2007
Campaign for Responsible Transplantation v. FDA, No. 06-5333
In FOIA litigation over FDA records pertaining to clinical trials in 35 investigational new drugs involving xenotransplantation, a procedure whereby animal organs or tissues are transplanted to the human body, denial of appellant's motion for attorney's fees after a partial summary judgment for the FDA and an order requiring the FDA to release documents in other cases is reversed where appellant was a prevailing party. Read more...

California Appellate Districts, December 24, 2007
Mitchell Land & Improvement Co. v. Risorante Ferantelli, Inc., No. G037944
In unlawful detainer action that was subsequently voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff, order awarding defendant its attorney's fees is modified to strike the attorney's fee award as Civil Code section 1717(b)(2) prohibits an award of attorney's fees when an action on a contract has been voluntarily dismissed. Read more...