Gagen, McCoy, McMahon, Koss, Markowitz & Fanucci
  • Home
  • About
  • Attorneys
    • Sumita Bhandari
    • Stephen T. Buehl
    • Rachel Margolis Chapman
    • C. Joseph Doherty III
    • Armand M. Estrada
    • Robert M. Fanucci
    • William E. Gagen Jr.
    • Barbara Duval Jewell
    • Charles A. Koss
    • Michael J. Markowitz
    • Aileen Rodriguez Mazanetz
    • Gregory L. McCoy
    • Daniel A. Muller
    • Sarah S. Nix
    • Elizabeth R. Weiss
  • Practice Areas
    • Business And Contract Law
    • Criminal Defense
    • Education Law
    • Intellectual Property
    • Land Use And Real Estate
    • Litigation
    • Tax Law
    • Trusts And Estate Planning
    • Winery And Vineyard Law
  • Developments of Interest
  • Blog
  • Contact
Select Page
NEW CASES OF INTEREST – SEPTEMBER 30, 2020
  1. Home
  2.  » 
  3. Developments of Interest
  4.  » NEW CASES OF INTEREST – SEPTEMBER 30, 2020

Ixchel Pharma, LLC v. Biogen, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1130.

Plaintiff had entered into an agreement with a drug company to develop a drug for the treatment of a particular disease.  The drug company terminated its contract with plaintiff, which it was allowed to do under the terms of the agreement.  Plaintiff sued the defendant for tortuously interfering with plaintiff’s contractual and perspective economic relationship with the drug company and claimed that the defendant had done so in violation of Business and Professions Code §16600.  The case was filed in federal court and the 9th Circuit certified two questions for the Supreme Court: 1) does Business and Professions Code §16600 void a contract by which a business is restrained from engaging in a lawful trade or business with another business; 2) is a plaintiff required to plead an independently wrongful act in order to state a claim for intentional interference with a contract that can be terminated by a party at any time, or does that requirement apply only to at-will employment contracts.

The Supreme Court held that to state a claim for interference with an at-will contract by a third party, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant engaged in an independently wrongful act.  The Supreme Court noted that rule of reason applies to determine the validity of a contractual provision by which a business is restrained from engaging in a lawful trade or business with another business.  The contract between the defendant and the drug company was such a restraint because it prevented the drug company from collaborating with the plaintiff and had to be evaluated under the rule of reason as to whether this constituted a violation of Business and Professions Code §16600.

Golden State Seafood, Inc. v. Schloss (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 21.  This is a SLAPP case.  The underlying action was a malicious prosecution claim against an attorney.  The SLAPP motion was denied as the court of appeal upheld a finding that the claim necessarily arose out of protected activity.  The court noted the underlying evidence indicated liability on behalf of the attorney, and the case was allowed to proceed.

  1. B. v. County of Los Angeles (2020) 10 Cal.5th 1. This was a matter in which a deputy in the LA County Sheriff’s Department in making an arrest did so with unnecessary force and committed a battery in doing so. The issue was whether the noneconomic damages awarded, $8,000,000, were subject to apportionment.  The court held that Civil Code §1431.2(a) does not authorize a reduction in the liability of intentional tortfeasors for noneconomic damages based on the extent to which the negligence of other actors, including the plaintiff, contributed to the injuries in question.  The Supreme Court concluded that under existing legal principles and statutory interpretation the statute at issue did not entitle the defendant to reduce his liability for noneconomic damages based on the acts of the decedent or the other defendants.

Bolger v. Amazon.com, LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 431.  This is a case in which the trial court summarily adjudicated causes of action for strict product liability in favor of a company operating a shopping website.  The court of appeal however reversed and remanded, concluding the policy considerations which underlaid the doctrine of strict liability indicated that the doctrine could apply to a company alleged to be a direct link in the chain of distribution, because that company could exert pressure on its third party sellers to enhance safety and to adjust the cost of liability between itself and its third party sellers.

Related Attorney(s):
Gregory L. McCoy

Practice Areas

  • Business And Contract Law
  • Criminal Defense
    • Drunk Driving Defense
    • Expungement
    • Juvenile Law
    • Sex Crimes
    • Violent Crimes
  • Education Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • Land Use And Real Estate
  • Litigation
  • Tax Law
  • Trusts And Estate Planning
    • Advance Health Care Directives
    • Financial Powers Of Attorney
    • Forms Of Property Ownership Between Spouses
      • Joint Tenancy Vs Community Property
      • Separate Property And Community Property
      • The Relationship Between Characterization Of Property, Marital Agreements And Estate Planning
      • Ways To Hold Title For Married Couples In California
    • Probate Procedures And Duties Of A Personal Representative
    • Revocable And Irrevocable Trusts
      • Guide For Transfer Of Assets To A Revocable Living Trust
      • Generation Skipping Transfer Tax Trusts (Dynasty Trusts)
      • Special Needs Trusts
      • The Revocable Living Trust
      • Trust Administration
    • Wills
  • Winery And Vineyard Law

Make An Appointment

To Speak With One Our Attorneys

Contact us today and find out how Gagen, McCoy, McMahon, Koss, Markowitz & Fanucci can assist you.

Call Us Now For Additional Information

To schedule an initial consultation, please call us at 925-837-0585. Our firm boasts decades of experience, and we are prepared to begin working for you.

The Law Offices Of Gagen, McCoy, McMahon, Koss, Markowitz & Fanucci 630 San Ramon Valley Blvd Suite 100 Danville, CA 94526

DANVILLE OFFICE

630 San Ramon Valley Blvd
Suite 100
Danville, CA 94526

Phone: 925-837-0585
Fax: 925-838-5985

Map & Directions
The Law Offices of Gagen, McCoy, McMahon, Koss, Markowitz & Fanucci The Offices at Stonebridge 1030 Main Street, Suite 212 St. Helena, CA 94574

ST. HELENA OFFICE

The Offices at Stonebridge
1030 Main Street, Suite 212
St. Helena, CA 94574

Phone: 707-963-0909
Fax: 707-963-5527

Map & Directions
Review Us
  • Follow
  • Follow

© 2021 Gagen, McCoy, McMahon, Koss, Markowitz & Fanucci. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Business Development Solutions by FindLaw, part of Thomson Reuters