Defendants, insurers, sought review of a decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, that granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff insured in an action alleging that defendants owed plaintiff a duty to defend it in trademark and unfair competition suits.
Overview
Plaintiff insured was sued by circuit breaker manufacturers in a suit alleging trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition, and RICO violations. Plaintiff was alleged to have engaged in a scheme to obtain used circuit breakers, remanufacture them, and then sell them as new, concealing the remanufacture by applying counterfeit labels to circuit breakers and shipping cartons. Defendant liability insurers refused to defend plaintiff in the underlying suits under advertising injury liability coverage. Plaintiff filed suit and the district court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment. The court reversed, granting defendants summary judgment, holding that in California, an advertising injury had to have a causal connection with the insured’s advertising activities before there could be coverage. Where there was no potential for coverage, there was no duty to defend.
Outcome
The court reversed and granted defendant insurers by san diego litigation attorney
summary judgment holding that where there was no potential for coverage, there was no duty to defend. In California, an advertising injury had to have a causal connection with the insured’s advertising activities before there could be coverage.
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-In a case where the plaintiff brings an ADA claim and a state law claim under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the court declined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s Unruh Act and other construction-related accessibility state law claims under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1367(c)(4) because the plaintiff, by filing his action in the court, had evaded the State’s heightened pleading standards and increased filings and sought a forum in which the plaintiff can claim State’s law damages in a manner inconsistent with the State law requirements.
Outcome
Court declined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s Unruh Act and any other construction-related accessibility claim.
