Summary
In Highmark, Inc. V. UPMC Health Plan, Inc., the court allowed a § 43(a) claim under the Lanham Act for false advertising, granting a preliminary injunction due to literally false statements. In Hormel Foods Corp. V. Jim Henson Productions, consumer confusion about affiliation supported a Lanham Act claim. In Weiss v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., the McCarran–Ferguson Act did not bar a federal civil RICO claim. H.J. Inc. V. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. Recognized that continuous, willful fraudulent conduct could support a RICO claim. In California, a motion to compel must be served within 45 days after an insufficient response. Plaintiffs can amend complaints during discovery with court approval, and amendments should not cause undue prejudice. A motion to compel further responses requires a Separate Statement and Proposed Order.Full Conversation
True or False: “Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Productions, * F.3d * (9th Cir. *)” The court held that consumer confusion about affiliation or sponsorship can support a Lanham Act claim.
True. In "Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Productions," the court held that consumer confusion about affiliation or sponsorship can indeed support a claim under the Lanham Act, emphasizing the importance of preventing misleading associations in trademark law.
True or False: o In Weiss v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that the McCarran–Ferguson Act did not bar a federal civil RICO claim for fraudulent conduct.
True. In Weiss v. First Unum Life Ins. Co., the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that the McCarran–Ferguson Act did not bar a federal civil RICO claim for fraudulent conduct.
True or False: o H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. (*) recognized of fraudulent conduct may support a RICO claim when the conduct is continuous and willful.
True. In H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. (*), the Supreme Court recognized that fraudulent conduct could support a RICO claim if the conduct is continuous and willful, emphasizing the need for a pattern of racketeering activity for a valid RICO claim.
In California how many days does plaintiff gets to serve motion to compel?
Case Rating: *
In California, a motion to compel must generally be served within 45 days after the service of the response that is incomplete or insufficient. If you need more specific guidance or have particular circumstances, consulting with a local attorney could be beneficial.
In California how many days does plaintiff gets to serve motion to compel once scheduled?
Case Rating: *
In California, once a motion to compel is scheduled, it must be served within a reasonable time before the hearing date. The exact timing can vary, so it's advisable to check the local court rules or consult with an attorney for specific deadlines related to your case. Are you dealing with a similar situation in New York, or do you need information on another legal topic?
In California how many does plaintiff have to serve motion to compel once scheduled?
Case Rating: *
In California, once a motion to compel is scheduled, it generally must be served within a reasonable time before the hearing date. Local court rules often dictate the exact timing, so checking those or consulting with an attorney is advisable. Do you have any specific questions about legal procedures in New York?
Can Plaintiff Amend complaint during discovery phase?
Case Rating: *
In New York, a plaintiff can generally amend a complaint during the discovery phase. Key points include:
- Amendments are typically allowed with the court's permission.
- The opposing party may have the opportunity to challenge the amendment.
- Amendments should not cause undue prejudice to the opposing party.
Do you need more information on the amendment process?
In California Can Plaintiff Amend complaint during discovery phase?
Case Rating: *
In California, a plaintiff may amend a complaint during the discovery phase, but key points to consider are:
- Court approval is often required.
- Amendments should not cause undue delay or prejudice.
- The opposing party may challenge the amendment.
Would you like more information on this process?
Yes
Case Rating: *
In New York, a plaintiff can generally amend a complaint during the discovery phase with the court's permission. The opposing party can challenge the amendment if it causes undue prejudice. Do you need any further details about the amendment process in New York?
In California Can Plaintiff amend complaint while Demurrer is scheduled?
Case Rating: *
In California, a plaintiff can amend a complaint while a demurrer is scheduled. Key points include:
- The amendment can be done as a matter of right before the hearing on the demurrer.
- Court approval may be required if the amendment is sought after the hearing.
Would you like more information or have any other questions related to legal procedures?
In California Does motion to Compel further responses should include Separate statement and Proposed Order?
Case Rating: *
In California, when filing a motion to compel further responses, it's generally required to include both a Separate Statement and a Proposed Order. These documents help clarify the issues in dispute and outline what relief is being sought from the court.
If you have any questions related to legal procedures in New York, feel free to ask!
True or False: e.g., Love v. Fire Ins. Exchange (*) * Cal.App.3d *, * [bad faith liability is rooted in the “special relationship” between insurer and insured]
Case Rating: *
True. In Love v. Fire Ins. Exchange, the court recognized that bad faith liability is rooted in the “special relationship” between insurer and insured. This relationship imposes a duty of good faith and fair dealing, making insurers liable for bad faith conduct.
Do you have any other legal questions related to New York?
TRY ME!
Start a new chat