Today's [7/27] Cases

Trois. Tre. 三. 


1. Najm v. Auburn Audio Technologies - 5:11-cv-03639

• Feheem Najm, AKAed as T-Pain, is the hip-hop artist probably most closely associated with trending the use of autotune. Antares Audio Technologies, the company that invented AutoTune, has been accused with "misappropriating T-Pain's right of publicity, committing unfair competition, and violating the Lanham Act". T-Pain's single "I'm Sprung" ('05) was known for the use of autotune and has "reportedly endorsed the software". However, last month, T-Pain announced his departure from AutoTune endorsement; this month, he revealed his competing product, The T-Pain Effect. "The T-Pain Effect, which the artist is developing with the digital audio processor iZotope Inc., is billed as a way for amateur and professional musicians to create beats and record vocals that sound like its eponymous star"



(from the Antares website: http://www.antarestech.com/images/tpain_295.jpg)

• This makes me wonder if/when Antares is going to file suit against T-Pain for patent infrigement (if any exists after the T-Pain Effect technology is released).
•  T-Pain is accusing Antares of continuing to use his image to promote its product "even after their business collaboration hit a sour note". T-Pain alleges that Antares pulled in an approximate $1 million from the "alleged unfair competition". (http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/260413)

2. In re: Borders Group Inc. et al - 1:11-bk-10614

• Borders Group has lost its good samaritan and last hope of preservation--Books-A-Million was unable to reach an agreement that satisfied Borders' terms. The 1,000 or so jobs that could have been saved by the Books-A-Million initially-proposed-30-store-saving-deal shall, after all, be lost. Going-out-of-business sales have now begun at all Borders locations. "Borders' intellectual property and much of its real estate are carved out from the current liquidation deal, which only covers physical assets at the stores. Borders and its creditors will look for buyers for the intellectual property and real estate separately", said Borders' attorney Andrew Glenn. (http://www.law360.com/topnews/articles/260337)

3. Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al - 1:10-cv-00569





(http://sickfacebook.com/images/mark_zuckerberg.jpg)


• As if Mark Zuckerberg didn't have enough on his plate--dealing with the the Winklevoss brothers and Narendra ongoing attempts to claim the stake in the company that is, arguably, theirs, as well as running the most popular social networking site in the world--he's being hit with yet another suit. Paul Ceglia is suing for what he claims to be is his 50% of the social phenomenon. He claims that back in 2003, he and Zuckerberg signed a contract that would allot him 50% interest in the software and assets of Facebook (the version at the time). Ceglia is hoping to obtain e-mails and documents of Zuckerberg's handwriting to aide in evidencing his claim.
  "Ceglia's suit contends that the 2003 agreement created a general partnership between Ceglia, who provided the capital, and Zuckerberg, who provided the technical know-how, to run The Face Book, the predecessor to the now-ubiquitous Facebook.
  The social networking company has acknowledged that Zuckerberg agreed to help develop a now-defunct website known as StreetFax.com, but maintains that the Facebook founder never signed a deal with Ceglia concerning Facebook or any similar social networking service.
  In late June, Ceglia's previous counsel...dropped him as a client without explanation, though Facebook said in a later court filing that one of the attorneys had made comments to reporters that 'addressed his efforts to get to the bottom of whether his client was fabricating documents'". (http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/260483)

Today's [7/26] Case

Only one today:

1. Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. - 3:10-cv-03561

• Judge William Alsup told the court that Oracle's $6 billion-assessed request in damages is excessive and to recalculate an appropriate amount, with a warning to not propose an outrageous compensation this time around. Oracle accuses Google of infringing Oracle patents in technology used in Google's Andriod smartphone--patents that Oracle obtained when it purchased Sun Microsystems Inc. (now named Oracle America). Judge Alsup recommended a figure of $100 million to Oracle as that is the amount Sun Microsystems had previously offered Google (in 2006) to licence Sun's Java technologies for mobile devices. He suggests this negotiation amount of $100 million--far from the exorbitant $6 billion--is appropriate, justifying his figure with the explanation that, "It seems highly unlikely that Android derives its entire value from a small set of infringing features, given its breadth. The next report must apportion the total value between the specific infringing features versus the rest of Android."
• 

• (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt3lnJb8GwuPRAN_fyCC9Sj14Eppmku1Lnlp4rGniQqsVpSHoIrw52wvaYCuyKpvEKXm014pCRdXKpdTqUDX2FDrzCz9LCd6r0aZFCpxhiX212kdCLGkL_LJ-2qdEFmtU47Bx4P9Rj1FQ/s1600/AskWiki-Google-Android.jpg)

Today's [7/25] Cases

Three cases/updates for this Monday.


1. Christian Louboutin S.A. et al v. Yves Saint Laurent America, Inc. et al - 1:11-cv-02381

(http://www.louboutin-onlineshop.com/UploadFile/20090419/20090419061141.JPG)

• Judge Victor Marrero has yet to come to a decision in the Louboutin v. YSL America case; Christian Louboutin S.A. is filing suit against YSL to prevent YSL's sales of red-soled shoes {the well-known Louboutin trademark}. Judge Marrero's awaited ruling will not simply affect the sale of YSL shoes, but also the fashion industry as a whole as it will set a precedent--whether or not a company can brand a "color". I will follow up in a new post whenever he reaches his decision.

2. ConnectU, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc. et al - 1:07-cv-10593

• (Follow-up on my 07/19 post) Friday, Massachusettes Judge Douglas Woodlock decided to toss the suit that the Winklevosses and Narendra (ConnectU) had against Zuckerberg (Facebook).

3. LaChapelle v. Fenty - 1:11-cv-00945





(http://cdn03.cdnwp.celebuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/01/rihanna-sm-video4-580x435.jpg)


• This past Valentines' Day, LaChapelle filed a suit against Rihanna (/ her S&M music-video-makers) for taking ideas from his photography portfolio for her S&M music video. "U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin said photographer David LaChapelle had successfully demonstrated that Robyn Rihanna Fenty, known professionally as Rihanna, record label Island Def Jam Group, video producer Black Dog Films Inc. and video director Melina Matsoukas copied eight of his still photographs in creating the music video for the Rihanna song 'S&M.'" Judge Scheindlin threw out the allegations of "unjust enrichment", "trade dress infringement" and "unfair competition". "The 'S&M' video, which depicts the singer in a number of sadomasochistic poses and situations, was released on Feb. 1. According to LaChapelle's complaint, various scenes from the video match up with eight still photographs produced and copyrighted by the photographer." {http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/259778}

-------
I recorded in Los Angeles this past Saturday with two friends [both of whom I will be working with from now on]--Miren Edelstien (violin) & Robert English (cajon)--and Matt Blankenship (vocals) from FluxCity. In sum, it was an absolutely incredible experience--quite unlike anything I'd ever done (besides when I recorded at Ex'pression with one of my old bands, Pear Waffles [but that was only a keyboard and drum set]).




Left to right: Robert, Matt, Angel, & Miren @ the studio, post-recording

 At the studio, I met and worked with Alex (vocals), Brittany (violin), Corinne (viola), Aaron (cello), two videographers, &Angel Figueroa (hand percussion & mixing/mastering).
It was a great group of musicians to work with and I can't wait to see how the website/video turns out (in a week or so)!

Today's [7/22] Cases

Okay, I have some great cases for Friday--6 of them! I have to start with the one that had me literally laughing out loud...

1. Kim Kardashian v. The Gap Inc. et al - 2:11-cv-05960

• The lowdown is that Kim Kardashian is suing Old Navy for hiring an actress/model for one of their commercials that looks like her.
• I have to interject here-- this is absolutely HILARIOUS to me. I'd never watched an episode of Keeping Up With the Kardashians (still have never watched a full episode), but I have watched parts of random episodes thanks to my old roommate (RKB RKB!), [and must admit that those clips were extremely entertaining]; I think Kim Kardashian is absolutely gorgeous... but I have to say, unless the Old Navy actress claims outright to be Kim Kardashian or mimics her actions with the intent to trick the general audience into thinking she is Kim Kardashian, this suit is ridiculous.
  The current estimate of the world's population is 6.9326 BILLION people; chances are, someone out there looks like you--whether they intend to or not is questionable (and often depends on your point of view / how vain you are). As Chuck Palahniuk writes, "You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else, and we are all part of the same compost pile" (Fight Club). Simply looking like someone else is not a crime (unless you go around trying to con people into thinking you actually are that other person, in which case, stealing others' identities is certainly a criminal act). How could someone else, then, sue a company for finding a model who happens to look like you, depriving her of a job because you share similar physical features? Simply disqualifying a candidate based upon appearance, if the candidate meets all other qualifications [has the applicable knowledge/skills/abilities], should be considered almost as egregious as disqualifying a candidate based upon sex, race/ethnic background, religion, or sexual orientation.
• Continuing with the case synopsis: Kim believes that the model Old Navy hired for their ad, Melissa Molinaro, looks "so much like" herself ... SO MUCH so that "people may become confused and believe" that it actually is her in the ad, and therefore believing that she "endorses" Old Navy. "'Defendants knowingly and intentionally took steps to exacerbate and perpetuate the likelihood of confusion and actual confusion in the minds of the consuming public and to perpetuate their unlawful exploitation of Kim Kardashian's likeness, identity and persona [via advertisement storyline] for the defendants' commercial gain'" claimed the prosecutors. {http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/259284}
• More commentary: Molinaro is filmed "getting a pedicure, dancing in a park, and shopping at Old Navy". No where in the video is she showing off what many consider to be Kim Kardashian's "best asset".
  This makes you wonder if anyone even remotely looks like a reality TV star/celebrity, if that person should all avoid shopping (to not accidentally endorse products/companies) or going out in public in general, so he/she does not run the risk of putting unknowing filmmakers or photographers in danger of getting sued. I'd also like to point out that Kim Kardashian never called Molinaro out on "looking" like her when Molinaro was a reality star (just like Kardashian) on The Pussycat Dolls Present: The Search for the Next Doll and Making the Band 3.

Here's the ad




Here's Kim Kardashian (http://www.dailycomedy.com/images/jokes/b/KimKardashian.jpg)

2. US v. Beda Singenberger - 1:11-cr-00620

• On Thursday, Beda Singenberger, financial adviser and owner of Sinco Treuhand (Zurich-based), was charged with conspiracy which aided a number of taxpayers hide over $184 million dollars from the IRS (Internal Revenue Service). He hid his clients' identities by moving their accounts to other Swiss banks during the time the US was investigating UBS AG. In total, "former UBS clients were charged with hiding more than $100 million from U.S. authorities". {http://www.law360.com/topnews/articles/259557}

3. Brady et al. v National Football League et al - 0:11-cv-00639

• NFL team owners "ratified a settlement and new 10-year collective bargaining agreement late Thursday that, if approved by the players' union, will end an antitrust class action against the league in Minnesota federal court and save the 2011 football season". The long-term agreement ends the league's lockout. "A lockout threatens the teams' ability to fund ex-players' benefits and semi-independent foundations that retired players depend on for services, including programs that provide treatment for spinal injuries, discount prescription drugs and cardiovascular screening, the ex-players claim." {http://www.law360.com/topnews/articles/259730}

4. Personal Audio, LLC v. Apple, Inc. - 9:11-cv-00120

• Personal Audio filed yet another complaint (after winning an initial $8 million verdict against Apple in court) against Apple Inc. for infringing its "playlist technology patent in several of its products, including the latest iPhone model". The latest complaint states that after Personal Audio made it's initial complaint of patent infrigement, Apple continued to release new iPods, iPhones, and iPads that infringed the same patent. However, "the two companies had reached an agreement at the time to limit the first suit to Apple's earlier product lines. 'The jury instructions given by the court specifically instructed the jury to disregard any evidence that Personal Audio was entitled to damages relating to products not accused in that litigation,' the new complaint says. 'Consequently, the damages award issued by the jury on July 8... does not cover any other products.'"  {http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/259396}
 



(http://www.idevicenews.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/iphone-5.jpg)



5. Marcus Abbe et al. v. City of San Diego - 09-56437

• The Ninth Circuit of the Court of Appeals decided not to "revive" the San Diego police officers' case against the city of underpaid overtime. The plaintiffs "claimed the city failed to pay them proper overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In a nonprecedential memorandum, the appeals court held that a California federal court had properly entered judgment against all remaining plaintiffs in the wake of a jury verdict on the claims of eight test plaintiffs, holding that the city was not liable for overtime violations under the FLSA...
  More than 1,500 police officers lodged the underlying lawsuit in 2005, accusing the city of refusing to pay them overtime for duties performed before and after their shifts, off-duty weapons proficiency training, SWAT training time and court preparation. Despite the large number of plaintiffs, the case was not brought as a class action, and the parties agreed to try the claims of a select number of plaintiffs on core liability issues."
  After going to trial and appeals, "the appeals panel affirmed the district court's judgment following the verdicts for the test plaintiffs and its grant of summary judgment on the donning and doffing issue. It also found that the plaintiffs had waived their claims that the lower court erred in entering summary judgment on breach of contract allegations and in denying a motion for a new trial, because the plaintiffs failed to develop those claims on appeal.
  The Ninth Circuit also dismissed the appealing plaintiffs' challenge to the court's decision to allow Jackson DeMarco to represent some plaintiffs, finding that the issue did not impact any of the plaintiffs in the appeal." {http://www.law360.com/california/articles/259398}
  
  6. In re: Borders Group, Inc. et al. - 1:11-bk-10614
• Borders' proposed plan to liquidate was approved by a New York Southern Court Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn on Thursday. Borders, a bookstore chain that had, at one point, over 1,200 locations, is currently only left with 389 stores. Today, the majority of Borders' remaining stores commenced "going-out-of-business" sales led by Hilco Merchant Resources and Gordon Brothers Group LLC. However, the 40-year life of Borders may not be completely over.
  "A tentative deal with Books-a-Million Inc... might allow as many as 35 Borders stores to continue operating in some form, which would save between 1,000 and 1,500 jobs, according to Borders' attorney Andrew Glenn. That deal is not final. Groups of lawyers from Borders and BAM huddled in negotiations right up to the start of a hearing before Judge Glenn. Even if the BAM sale goes through, that limited deal falls far short of the future that seemed possible for Borders until last week: sale of the retailer to the Najafi Cos., a group that said it intended to continue to operate the chain." {http://www.law360.com/topnews/articles/259628}

(http://windows7reports.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Borders.jpg)

------

Another interesting case to look up, if you have time [New York Federal Judge Barbara Jones threw out the $1.6 billion-Basic-Yield-Alpha-Fund (hedge fund)-led lawsuit yesterday]:
Basic Yield Alpha Fund v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. et al - 1:10-cv-04537

(http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2011/06/02/108240-goldman-sachs.jpg)

------

On another note, I'm recording tomorrow! I'll post the finish product whenever it's uploaded. :]

Today's [7/21] Cases

Today, I'll be summarizing six cases/developments.


1. In re: The Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010 - 2:10-md-02179

• On the 20th, Judge Carl Barbier of the Louisiana Federal District Court denied BP a bid to "compel the office of President Barack Obama to surrender e-mails from four aides that discussed the government's response to the Deepwater Horizon disaster" as "'BP has not made a sufficient demonstration of need for the documents'" [Judge Sally Shushan]. The evidence BP has already reviewed suggests that former Obama aide, Carol Browner, "'was personally and substantially involved' in producing the government's estimates" of the flow of oil from the spill. BP wanted access to review the e-mails from Browner who was the Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy until March. {http://www.law360.com/environmental/articles/259344}




BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2010/5/8/1273321857108/Deepwater-Horizon-oil-rig-006.jpg



2. Aviles v. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. - 10-12216 [Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit]

• The 11th circuit upheld the decision for Javier Aviles, a former Charles Schwab employee, "accused of breaching contract and soliciting Schwab clients after jumping ship to Bank of America Investment Services Inc." to fork over a $1.4 million award in trade secrets arbitration. Aviles left Schwab in 2007 and was then accused of a breach of contract. He had had contested the award of $1.4 million back in May 2010 (after moving the matter to the Florida Federal Court in 2009); the 11th circuit agreed with the previous district court's findings, stating, "None of the arguments made by Aviles justify vacating the award". {http://www.law360.com/articles/259307}

3. CBS Television Studios v. Entertainment One Ltd. et al. - BC465573

• CBS Television Studies sued L. Reiter, writer of TV-series "The Firm" (first a novel and movie), accusing him of "breaching his contract to develop [the] TV-series sequel to [the novel] by selling a nearly identical project to rival network NBC". CBS is suing both Reither as well as his "distribution partner, Entertainment One Ltd." Much of the same material Reiter provided CBS with was then distributed to NBC, even using "some identical plot details, dialogue, and camera direction". {http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/259242}



The book that the TV series were based upon.

4. USA v. Petters, et al. - 0:11-cr-00141

• Thomas J. Petters, who ran a $3.7 billion dollar Ponzi scheme run, accrued new charges yesterday. The new charges were heaped onto "one of the scheme's primary fundraisers"; prosecutors also implicated another hedge fund manager. The DOJ (US Department of Justice) "elaborated on the initial charges against Petters’ longtime associate Frank Elroy Vennes Jr., adding 17 counts in connection with the swindle, and dragged James Nathan Fry, the head of Arrowhead Capital Management, into the suit". In April of 2010, Petters was sentenced to 50 years in jail. "The superseding indictment charges Venners with 24 counts of fraud, money laundering and making false statements on credit applications. Fry is accused of five counts of securities fraud, four counts of wire fraud and three counts of lying to the SEC during its investigation of Arrowhead. Two other hedge fund managers, David Harrold and Bruce Prevost, pled guilty to their role in the Petters scam in April and settled a civil suit brought by the US Securities and Exchange Commission.. They allegedly raked in more than $58 million in management fees while funneling about $1 billion of clients’ money from a group of Palm Beach funds into the Ponzi scheme" . {http://www.law360.com/topnews/articles/259142}

5. In re: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. et al. - 1:08-bk-13555

•  Judge James Peck (NY Bankruptcy judge) approved a settlement between "Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and [its] creditors after the few remaining holdouts withdrew their objections, a major milestone in the long-running bankruptcy". He approved a "stipulation that will stop creditors who collectively hold about $100 billion in claims from pursuing discovery or proposing competing plans of their own. 'As in all things, it is not perfect, but it is a major step forward in the administration of these cases,' Lehman attorney Harvey Miller said of the deal". There is still much to discuss and resolve (in particular, claims against Lehman's foreign entities), but this settlement approval certainly is a huge step towards resolution {http://www.law360.com/topnews/articles/259269}.
  




Read on about the Lehman Brothers' Bankruptcy Filing (Sept. '08): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122145492097035549.html



6. In the Matter of Wells Fargo & Co. et al. - docket number 11-094

• On the 20th, Wells Fargo & Co. agreed to pay $85 million dollars, the greatest federally-assessed  penalty amount "in a consumer-protection enforcement action", to the Federal Reserve Board.  The multi-million dollar assessment was also the "first formal enforcement action by a federal bank regulator addressing the steering of borrowers into high-cost subprime loans". This sizeable compensation is to be allocated to resolving claims that stated, "members of a shuttered subsidiary pushed customers into costlier subprime mortgages and falsified income information in mortgage applications". The Board claimed that for 4.5 years, Wells Fargo Financial Inc. (now defunct), "pushed borrowers [who] were eligible for lower interest prime mortgages into subprime loans at higher interest rates". Though Wells Fargo agreed to pay the settlement amount, the company neither claimed innocence nor guilt. "The settlement requires Wells Fargo to review the qualifications of all borrowers who took out a subprime, cash-out refinancing loan between January 2006 and June 2008 from its subsidiary and check if they were wrongly steered into the loans, the regulator said. Wells Fargo also must review all customers who took out cash-out refinancing loans between January 2004 and June 2008 from Wells Fargo Financial to determine whether their income statements were falsified under the agreement". {http://www.law360.com/articles/259364/wells-fargo-hit-with-85m-subprime-steering-penalty}

Today's [7/20] Cases

Ah, so many interesting new cases and case developments... Here are my top five:

1. Medical Advocates for Healthy Air et al. v. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - 4:11-cv-03515

• The EPA was called out (by the Sierra Club and the Medical Advocates for Healthy Air) for not keeping a deadline of determining whether or not the San Joaquin Valley's anti-ozone pollution efforts had met the national (acceptable) standard.




Pg. 1: Complaint Intro (from Law360.com)



2. In Re: Digital Music Antitrust Litigation - 1:06-md-01780

• Judge L. Preska dismissed claims that Time Warner, Bertelsmann, and Sony were secretly corroborating to raise digital music prices; the plaintiffs are only allowed to file suit against the subsidiaries of the 3 companies as the aforementioned companies were found to be "sufficiently separate from their music units". Now, the defendants remaining are Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Capitol Records Inc., EMI Group North America Inc.,  Capitol-EMI Music Inc., Virgin Records America Inc., UMG Recordings Inc., and Warner Music Group Corp.

3. Craze Productions et al. v. Google Inc. et al. - BC465409

• Craze Productions (based out of London, UK) sued Google Inc. and Youtube LLC last week in California. Craze Productions claimed that Google and Youtube were "violating a contract and shortchanging it out of millions of dollars' worth of ad revenue generated through thousands of music clips and movies uploaded to Youtube". {http://www.law360.com/california/articles/258593}

4. USA v. Hensley - 2:11-cf-00455

• On the 18th, C. Hensley, the inventor of Zicam, a cold and allergy relief product, pled guilty to charges that he marketed an herbal product, Vira 38, "as treatment for bird flu without US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval"--a misdemeanor. He was previously arrested in June "for his role in marketing" it. "At sentencing Hensley faces a maximum of one year in prison, according to the agreement. He also agreed to forfeit just over $85,000". {http://www.law360.com/california/articles/259109}

5. The Author's Guild et al. v. Google Inc. - 1:05-cv-08136

• Judge Denny Chin extended Google's deadline for a settlement for the company's planned Google Books project--a massive digital library. Google and a group of authors and publishers now have extra time to "discuss terms of a possible deal that would settle a lawsuit over Google's plans to create" Google Books. Honorable Judge Chin warned that if they did not reach a settlement soon (stressing the importance of a deadline), he would decide if offering free snippets of a book online should be considered fair use". This hearing (on the 19th) is only the "latest wrangling in a 6-year-old suit over Google's plans to create a digital library". {http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/258991}

Previous Cases & Today's [7/19] Cases

I'm going list a handful of cases that I found intriguing during my first month of work, and post their case titles and/or case numbers up here; I will expand upon them (garnished with my opinions) later on, if I have time--I'm typing this up during my lunch break. :]

Today:
1. Alexander v. Murdoch et al - 1:10-cv-05613

• Judge P. Crotty of the New York Southern Court threw out a copyright suit brought by Alexander against Murdoch (owner of News Corp.), Disney Enterpriseses, Fox Entertainment Group, CBS Broadcasting Inc., Apple Inc., Hulu LLC, IMDB.com Inc., Amazon.com Inc., (and many more); Alexander, co-writer of the "Looney Ben" sitcom plot (co-writer Diane Dowgwillow is not a part of the suit), claimed that "Modern Family"'s producers plagiarized his pilot script. Judge Crotty concurred with Judge Francis' opinion stating, "no reasonable jury could find the 'total concept and feel' of 'Modern Family'" adhered to that of "Looney Ben".

2. Sprinkles Cupcakes, Inc. v. Pink Sprinkles, LLC - 3:11-cv-01117

• Sprinkles Cupcakes is suing Pink Sprinkles Cupcakes for using a similar name to its trademarked named. As consumers are likely to be confused by the two similar names (as they both have extremely similar names and products), Sprinkles Cupcakes (that has made its way onto the Oprah Winfrey show) found it egregious for Pink Sprinkles to continue doing business under its name.

3. Dragovich et al v. United States Dept. of the Treasury et al - 4:10-cv-01564

• (no time to elaborate, but: http://www.law360.com/articles/258592/same-sex-couples-win-class-in-calpers-insurance-fight)

4. (UK case): Allen v. Bloomsbury Publishing PLC, case number GLC 72/10, in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division

• Only July 18th, the lawsuit against JK Rowling (alleging Rowling stole plot ideas for the "Harry Potter" book 4 (Goblet of Fire) from Adrian Jacobs' (now deceased) book, "Willy the Wizard" [published in 1987], after Jacobs' previous agent, C. Little, had given Rowling access to the book while she was writing the "Harry Potter" series ) was dismissed because "Jacobs' estate failed to pay the bond to continue the case. Judge David Kitchin of the High Court of Justice had said in March that the deceased author's estate would have to produce a £1.5 million pound security bond in order the continue with the copyright infringement case". This order was then challenged by Jacobs' estate and was rejected by the UK Court of Appeal. {http://www.law360.com/articles/258662/uk-court-to-potter-plagiarism-suit-expelliarmus-}

• 
  

Previous:
1. United States of America v. City of New York - 1:07-cv-02067

•  The Dept. of Justice sued New York City, claiming that it was disqualifying certain minority candidates due to it's pricey qualifying firefighter test. The city had designed a newer test, but was planning on raising the test price to $54 (from $30). "The plaintiffs argued that the higher price would disproportionately discourage black and Hispanic people from applying to take the test, known as Exam 2000". Previously, in mid-2007 (initial complaint in 2002 filed with the EEOC), the Dept. of Justice had conluded that the test (written exam) was discriminatory. As previously mentioned, the city developed a newer test and began administering a revised exam in January of 2007; the city also launched a $2 million recruitment campaign which resulted in much higher numbers of black and Hispanic applicants that year. The city reported a current 38% of successful test takers to be minorities. The court ruled on July 11th, 2011, that New York City can charge a maximum test-taking fee of $30 to firefighter candidates. On July 13th, Judge Garaufis ruled that the exam must also include gender, ethnicity, and race data, to prevent future discrimination against minorities (the demographic data collected from previous firefighter examinations evidence the court's findings "of disparate impact and disparate treatment").

2. Somers v. Apple, Inc. - 5:07-cv-06507

• (also no time to elaborate: http://www.law360.com/articles/254301/apple-gets-itunes-antitrust-action-tossed)

3. Connectu, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc. - 1:07-cv-10593

• This case is especially interesting if you've watched The Social Network; Facebook (Zuckerberg) asks MA judge to toss out the IP suit from the Winklevoss twins (founders of ConnectU) after they had already dropped "their fight over a reported $65 million settlement".{http://www.law360.com/articles/256582/facebook-wants-winklevoss-suit-in-mass-tossed}

• Armie Hammer as Tyler/Cameron Winklevoss in The Social Network

Everybody has to start (again) somewhere

This is the beginning, according to Aristotle; an unpublished blog post, the letter A.
I've authored a couple online blogs previously, none of which I used for any particular purpose, aside from spewing random thoughts out into the universe via the world wide web (helping nourish the inherent narcissism within myself--the same narcissism that nests inside each of us, perpetuated by blog postings, facebook status updates, twitter tweets--each and every dopamine high {* Samina Lutfeali} obtained from seeing a little, red facebook flag signaling a new notification or message, believing that anyone besides yourself really values your opinion enough to read your surely inconsistent ramblings)...

Yes, with that said, I have returned to the online journal.

Why?
Because I'd rather blog than start an underground secretive fight club. [duh]
Because it's the mindless thing to do--to type out the thoughts that enter your mind.
Because I have always taken to keeping an account of happenings in my life--mild athazagoraphobia.
Because now that I am living the working life, it is just something else to do in the few waking hours I spend each weekday not at work or playing music.
Because I have neither a roommate nor boyfriend to bother [hahaha].
Because I love the clicking sound of the keyboard when I type.
Because now that I've graduated, I need a new form of procrastination.
Because (as aforementioned) it's an ego boost when you think your thoughts are valuable enough to post on the web.
Because I can [ <-- terrible].
Because I don't have to justify myself when I don't want to-- or I can overjustify myself (like so) if I'm in the mood.


*The formal justification:
I am starting this blog because I would like to share my thoughts on cases I find intriguing as well as stories of my musical endeavors; I work at a law firm that subscribes to Law360 and opted-in to receive their daily newsletters which I quickly peruse each morning before going about my daily business. There is always a case or two that catches my eye, and I figure I would get the most out of the daily e-newsletters if I write up a synopsis about each case that I deem interesting each day (so between one and ten cases per day) :].
I also am an aspiring musician; I have studio time this coming Saturday thanks to http://www.fluxcity.com/ and have gained a small following thanks to Skrillex posting a few of my arrangements on his facebook artist page. And of course, as with each blog, I will throw in a couple personal anecdotes from time to time--which may or may not be law/music-related.

A couple of my arrangements [all transribed alone by yours truly, by ear] from earlier this year (in order of which I am proudest):

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b5AbCknZrs
2. http://www.facebook.com/skrillex/posts/123345304407373
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v​=r-siMUVTro4
4. http://www.facebook.com/skrillex/posts/219870104701833

Hmm, signing off my first post with my new legal and music blog, I have congratulate my friend and fellow Cal grad, Alex Morgan; practically all of America (and much of the world) has heard your name by now :] We all couldn't be prouder of your performance in your first world cup--a goal and an assist in the final.

I found the following article of The Seattle Times interviewing Serva:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/soundersfcblog/2015652385_servando_carrasco_proud_of_gir.html
(Definitely my favorite couple.)