• Regency Outdoor Adv., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 126 Cal. App. 4th 1281 (2005) (considering whether city must compensate company for inverse condemnation for having planted palm trees that partially obstructed visibility of company's billboards. The California Supreme Court granted review of this decision on May 11, 2005)
• Yamagiwa v. City of Half Moon Bay, 2005 WL 1774402 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 27, 2005) (considering whether city properly construed meaning of term “wetlands” in own coastal land-use plan when denying coastal development permit to real-property owner)
• 99¢ Only Stores v. Lancaster Redevelopment Agency, 60 Fed. Appx. 123 (9th Cir. 2003) (Power of eminent domain cannot be used to condemn for purely private purpose)
• Kottschade v. City of Rochester, 319 F.3d 1038 (8th Cir. 2003) (Whether ripeness rules need correction is for Supreme Court to decide)
• Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002) (Whether a land use moratorium is a taking of property must be decided on a case-by-case basis)
• Greater Omaha Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 605 N.W.2d 472 (Neb. 2000) (Challenge of right to condemn becomes moot when project is built during appeal process)
• People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Southern California Edison Co. 22 Cal.4th 791 (2000) (Computation of interest due for prejudgment possession in eminent domain)
• City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687 (1999) (Right to 7th Amendment jury trial and 5th Amendment compensation for regulatory taking)
• Ellis v. State, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 458 (Cal. App. 1996) (Ordinary tort defenses do not bar landowner from recovering in inverse condemnation)
• Sinclair Oil Co. v. County of Santa Barbara, 96 F.3d 401 (9th Cir. 1996) (Use of ripeness and abstention doctrines in regulatory taking and substantive due process land use cases)
• Killington, Ltd. v. State, 668 A.2d 1278 (Vt. 1995) (Regulatory taking suit not ripe where no permit sought for ultimate project desired)
• Hendler v. United States, 952 F.2d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Physical invasion of property by government is a taking, regardless of good intentions of government; U.S. is responsible for actions of state officials acting pursuant to U.S. authority)
• National Advertising Co. v. City of Raleigh, 947 F.2d 1158 (4th Cir. 1991) (Property owner has immediate cause of action for regulatory taking as soon as ordinance affecting property is adopted)
• Preseault v. ICC, 494 U.S. 1 (1990) (Federal “rails-to-trails” statute is valid under the Commerce Clause; however, compensation may be sought in the Claims Court under the Just Compensation Clause)
• First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987) (Constitution requires just compensation for regulatory taking of property)
• Palmer v. City of Ojai, 178 Cal. App. 3d 280 (1986) (Failure to act on project application within one year means project is deemed approved)
• City of Los Angeles v. Tilem, 142 Cal. App. 3d 694 (1983) (Violation of standards in Uniform Real Property Acquisition Policies Act is unreasonable conduct which requires compensation)
• County of Los Angeles v. Berk, 26 Cal. 3d 201 (1980). (Years of adverse use shows property impliedly dedicated to public)

Health Care Industry

• Cleghorn v. Blue Shield of California, 408 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2005) (State-law statutory claims for denial of emergency care benefits preempted by ERISA)
• Humana of Aurora, Inc. v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1579 (10th Cir. 1985) (Successful hospital challenge to federal Medicare reimbursement regulation)
• Olszewski v. Scripps Health, 30 Cal. 4th 798 (2003) (Health care providers cannot be retroactively liable for acting in accordance with a state medical lien statute that subsequently was invalidated)
• Congress of California Seniors v. Catholic Healthcare West, 87 Cal. App. 4th 491 (2001) (State courts cannot adjudicate the propriety of hospital Medicare and Medi-Cal cost reports under the guise of enforcing California's Unfair Competition Law)
• Oskooi v. Fountain Valley Regional Hospital & Medical Center, 42 Cal. App. 4th 233 (1996). (Hospital can dismiss physician from its medical staff based upon negative information about the physician's practice history that the physician failed to disclose, even though the hospital might have discovered the information sooner than it did)
• Sater v. Wyckoff Hts. Hospital, 643 N.Y.S.2d 664 (App. Div. 1996) (Physician cannot enforce purported oral employment contract when State Health Department regulations require written agreements)
• City of Hope National Medical Center v. Superior Court, 8 Cal. App. 4th 633 (1992) (When hospital provides care to patient with verified insurance coverage, hospital is entitled to keep the money it receives from the patient's insurer, even if the insurer decides months later that the treatment was not covered under the patient's policy)

Entertainment Industry

• 24/7 Records, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., 429 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2005)(plaintiff not entitled to pursue claim for breach of record distribution agreement where plaintiff had not obtained license for song recording and not performed its own contractual obligations)
• Cusano v. Klein, 153 Fed. Appx. 998 (9th Cir. 2005) (Sanctions for frivolous appeal awarded against former member of rock band arising from his suit against band and record company for royalties)
• Daisley v. Ozzy Osbourne, 78 Fed. Appx. 594 (9th Cir. 2003) (Defending rock star Ozzy Osbourne and his record label in a copyright infringement action relating to record albums that sold over 5 million copies)
• Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony Records, Inc., 351 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2003). (Court rejects “bare corporate receipt doctrine,” under which some courts had allowed plaintiffs to succeed merely by showing that the company employing the alleged infringer had received the work)
• Willis v. Home Box Office, 57 Fed. Appx. 902 (2d Cir. 2003) (Defending cable network in claim for copyright infringement regarding the television series Arliss)
• Estate of Michael Jeffrey v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc., 743 N.Y.S. 2d 717 (App. Div. 2002) (Defending record company in royalty action brought by estate of former manager of legendary musical artist Jimi Hendrix; dismissal affirmed)
• Selletti v. Carey, 173 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 1999) (Defending recording artist Mariah Carey in copyright infringement case; dismissal affirmed)
• Damiano v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. and Bob Dylan, 975 F. Supp. 623 (D.N.J. 1996), appeal dismissed, 166 F.3d 1204 (3d Cir. 1998) (Defending recording artist and record label in copyright infringement action)
• Thomas v. Larson, 147 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 1998) (Defending the heirs of the author of the drama Rent in a publicized decision deciding important questions concerning the scope of the joint authorship provisions of the Copyright Act)
• Abdul-Jabbar v. General Motors Corp., 75 F.3d 1391, as amended, 85 F.3d 407 (9th Cir. 1996) ( Representing basketball star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in a successful appeal over dismissal of his right of publicity and Lanham Act claims involving use of his former name, Lew Alcindor, in advertising)

Intellectual Property/Internet

• Sargent Fletcher, Inc. v. Able Corp., 110 Cal. App. 4th 1658 (2003) (Burden of proof in trade secret litigation is on party claiming improper use)
• Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com, 2000 WL 1887522 (C.D. Cal.), aff'd, 2 Fed. Appx. 741 (9th Cir. 2000) (Established new standards regarding enforceability of terms of use on a website)

Insurance

• Lambros v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 111 Cal. App. 4th 43 (2003) (Insurer entitled to retain “unused” portion of annual life insurance premium when coverage was terminated prior to the end of the year)
• Sousa v. Unilab Corp. Class II (Non-Exempt) Members Group Benefit Plan, 252 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (E.D. Cal.), aff'd, 83 Fed. Appx. 954 (9th Cir. 2003) (Three-year contractual limitations period was reasonable and governed plaintiffs' claims under ERISA, rather than California's four-year statute of limitations period)
• AMEX Life Assurance Co. v. Superior Court, 14 Cal. 4th 1231 (1997) (Whether a terminally ill applicant for life insurance can create an enforceable contract by sending an impostor to take the physical examination and blood tests which are an express condition precedent to the issuance of a contract insuring the life of the applicant or whether the incontestability provision in the contract controls)
• Crusader Ins. Co. v. Scottsdale Insurance Co., 54 Cal. App. 4th 121 (1997) (No private right of action under the Insurance Code provision requiring surplus line brokers to conduct a “diligent search” for a carrier admitted to do business in California before placing a risk with a non-admitted carrier)
• Pieper v. Commercial Underwriters Ins. Co., 59 Cal. App. 4th 1008 (1997) (How to recover under an insurance policy when there are multiple causes of loss)
• Hadland v. NN Investors Life Ins. Co., 24 Cal. App. 4th 1578 (1994) (There is no private right of action under California Insurance Code Sections 790.03(a) and (b); failure to read insurance contract precludes justifiable reliance on oral representations about health insurance coverage)
• Prudential Reinsurance Co. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 4th 1118 (1992) (Reinsurers are entitled to offset amounts owed to them by an insolvent insurance company against amounts owed by them under the terms of their reciprocal reinsurance contracts and California Insurance Code Section 1031)
• Safeco Ins. Co. v. Guyton, 692 F.2d 551 (9th Cir. 1982) (All risk homeowners policy provides coverage if a cause of the loss is covered, even though another cause of the loss is excluded)

Environmental

• Business and Residents Alliance of East Harlem v. Jackson, 430 F.3d 584 (2d Cir. 2005) (Where no federal agency has jurisdiction over local redevelopment project partially financed by federal funds, the review required by the National Historic Preservation Act is not applicable)
• No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 196 Cal. App. 3d 223 (1987) (Defense of action seeking to prevent petroleum exploration)
• Sierra Club v. Clark, 774 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir. 1985) (Application of Federal Land Planning and Management Act)
• Friedman Bros. Inv. Co. v. Lewis, 676 F.2d 1317 (9th Cir. 1982) (Federal decision to fund project makes NEPA dispute ripe for decision)
• City of Romulus v. County of Wayne, 634 F.2d 347 (6th Cir. 1980) (Adequacy of airport EIS and propriety of appellate review after completion of project)
• Greater Westchester Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles, 26 Cal. 3d 86 (1979) (Victims of airport nuisance may recover damages for emotional distress)
• City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 12 Cal. 3d 447(1974) (Claim for airport noise damage may be filed on behalf of class; but class lawsuit not appropriate, as each parcel is unique)

Procedural Issues

• Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. v. City of Irvine, 2005 DJDAR 688 (Cal. App. 2004) (Challenge to conditional use permit absolutely time barred)
• Gold v. Gold Realty Co., 114 Cal. App. 4th 791 (2003) (Power and process for appointing a receiver)
• Medisys Health Network, Inc. v. Local 348-S, Food & Commercial Workers, 337 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2003) (Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review trial court's remand of improperly removed case)
• PBA, LLC v. KPOD, Ltd., 112 Cal. App. 4th 965 (2003) (Proper interpretation of statutes involving disqualification of judges and declaration of vexatious litigants)
• STI Outdoor, LLC v. Superior Court, 91 Cal. App. 4th 334 (2001) (Application of Public Records Act to documents submitted to agency in confidence)
• Marylander v. Superior Court, 81 Cal. App. 4th 1119 (2000) (Public Records Act may not shield documents without judicial examination of conditional privilege invoked)
• Hamilton Copper & Steel Corp. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 898 F.2d 1428 (9th Cir. 1990) (Trial judge had no inherent power to dismiss a case with prejudice without notice or opportunity for hearing)
• State ex rel. Nagel v. Crookham, 680 P.2d 652 (Or. 1984) (Pre-condemnation damages may be sought by counterclaim)
• Murty v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Airport Bd., 612 S.W.2d 765 (Ky. App. 1981). (Government's right to take property may not be challenged by interlocutory appeal)
• City of Los Angeles v. Decker, 18 Cal. 3d 860 (1977) (Government attorneys owe duty to litigate fairly and not to mislead jury)

Amicus Curiae

• Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005) (scope of the “public use” concept in eminent domain)
• Kristine H. v. Lisa R., 37 Cal. 4th 156 (Cal. S. Ct. 2005) (Parent estopped from challenging validity of stipulated judgment declaring her lesbian partner the other parent of her child)
• Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc., 125 S. Ct. 2074 (2005) (regulatory taking requires economic impact)
• Marine Forests Society v. California Coastal Commn., 36 Cal. 4th 1 (2005) (constitutionally of the California Coastal Commission)
• Parnell v. Adventist Health System/West, 35 Cal. 4th 595 (2005) (interpretation of the California hospital lien statute as applied to an insured patient)
• Radian Guaranty, Inc. v. Garamendi, 127 Cal. App. 4th 1280 (2005) (Challenge to Insurance Commissioner's cease and desist order prohibiting mortgage guaranty insurer from offering lien protection policies)
• San Remo Hotel v. City & County of San Francisco, 125 S. Ct. 2491 (2005) (impact of full faith and credit act on property owner's ability to sue for regulatory taking in federal court)
• Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 380 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2004) (Copyright implications of peer-to-peer file sharing computer networking software)
• Medical Staff of Sharp Mem. Hosp. v. Superior Court, 121 Cal. App. 4th 173 (2004) (Court will not “second guess” medical staff about physician's fitness to continue to maintain staff privileges [describing Manatt analysis as “persuasive”)
• People v. Pena, 32 Cal. 4th 389 (2004) (Court of Appeal notice appearing to coerce waiver of oral argument is improper)
• ETW Corp. v. Jireh Pub., Inc., 332 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2003) (1st Amendment protected use of athlete's name and image)
• Olszewski v. Scripps Health, 30 Cal. 4th 798 (2003) (Health care providers cannot be retroactively liable for acting in accordance with a state medical lien statute that subsequently was invalidated)
• Santini v. Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service, 342 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2003) (Fairness demands ability of property owner to reserve federal issues for federal court litigation when compelled to litigate in state court)
• Galland v. City of Clovis, 24 Cal. 4th 1003 (2001) (City may be liable for damages for deprivation of property without substantive due process)
• Hoffman v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 255 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2001) (1st Amendment protects speech that is not purely commercial)
• MediaOne Group, Inc. v. County of Henrico, 257 F.3d 356 (4th Cir. 2001) (Federal law pre-empts local regulation of cable television franchise)
• Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc., 23 Cal. 4th 116 (2000) (Disgorgement into fluid recovery fund not allowed in non-class “representative” Unfair Competition Law action)
• Allen v. Lloyd's of London, 94 F.3d 923 (4th Cir. 1996) (Validity of insurer's reorganization plan)
• City of San Diego v. Neumann, 6 Cal. 4th 738 (1993) (In direct condemnation, “larger parcel” can be determined by examining unity of future use)
• Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (Legislation which deprives property owner of beneficial or productive use of land is a taking; exceptions to this rule are narrow and must account for property owners expectations when property was acquired; legislative “findings” are not conclusive)
• Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992) (Mobile home park rent and vacancy control regulations are not a physical taking of property; whether they are regulatory taking was not decided)
• Garvey v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 48 Cal. 3d 395 (1989) (Homeowners' insurance policy provides coverage if a covered peril is a substantial cause of the loss)
• Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) (Permit condition which is unrelated to public burden to be caused by proposed development is void)
• MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. County of Yolo, 477 U.S. 340 (1986) (Regulatory taking case held unripe for litigation)
• Baker v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Auth., 39 Cal. 3d 862 (1985) (Public agency liable in inverse condemnation even if it lacks power to condemn; airport operation is continuing nuisance)
• Redevelopment Agency v. Gilmore, 38 Cal. 3d 790 (1985) (Just compensation guarantee includes interest at market rate)
• Kirby Forest Indus., Inc. v. United States., 467 U.S. 1 (1984) (Constitution requires eminent domain valuation near date of taking)
• Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980) (Regulatory taking case held unripe for litigation)
• Jones v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation, 22 Cal. 3d 144 (1978) (State is liable in inverse condemnation when its highway plans result in elimination of access to private property)

Antitrust

• Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.Com Inc., 127 Fed. Appx. 346 (9th Cir. 2005) (defending Ticketmaster against allegations of Sherman Act violations arising from its practices of awarding exclusive contracts to ticketing agencies)

Labor & Employment

• Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court (Herrera), 134 Cal. App. 4th 365 (2005) (demand for civil wage and hour violation penalties stricken where plaintiffs failed to exhaust mandatory administrative remedies)
• Figueroa v. Northridge Hospital Medical Center, 134 Cal. App. 4th 10 (2005) (Denial of motion to amend to add class action claims is unappealable)

Consumer/Class Action

• BMG Direct Marketing, Inc. v. Peake, 178 S.W.3d 763 (Texas 2005) (Texas Supreme Court reversing trial court order certifying a class and ruling that trial court had failed adequately to consider the effect of the voluntary payment rule, as a defense to the plaintiff's and putative class members' claims, on the viability of the action as a class action and on the requirements for class certification)

Securities

• Securities and Exch. Comm'n v. Shoreline Dev. Co., 149 Fed. Appx. 659 (9th Cir. 2005) (considering whether defendants' sales of fractional interests in oil and gas rights were subject to and barred by Securities Act of 1933 and related regulations)

Fiduciary Duties

• Casey v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 127 Cal. App. 4th 1138 (2005) (considering whether trustee of bankrupt corporation sufficiently pleaded claim that banks aided and abetted corporation's fiduciaries in defrauding and looting corporation)
• Federal Trade Comm'n v. Certified Merch. Servs., Ltd., 126 Fed. Appx. 651 (9th Cir. 2005) (considering effect of receiver's breaches of fiduciary duty on amount of his compensation)

First Amendment

• West Marine, Inc. v. Causeiknow@yahoo.com, 2005 WL 32002 (Cal. App. Jan. 6, 2005) (considering whether trial court should have granted anti-SLAPP motion to strike lawsuit against person who made Internet postings about plaintiff company that were allegedly false and disclosed confidential company information)

Constitutional Issues

• AlaskaCentr. Express Inc. v. United States, 145 Fed. Appx. 211 (9th Cir. 2005) (considering constitutionality of Rural Service Improvement Act of 2002's eligibility requirements for air carriers transporting mail within Alaska)

Additional Appellate Matters

Antitrust

• Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield, 25 Cal. 4th 826 (2001) (trial court properly granted summary judgment for defendants, because plaintiff failed to show defendant petroleum companies had engaged in an antitrust/price-fixing conspiracy)
• Universal Analytics, Inc. v. MacNeal-Schwendler Corp., 707 F. Supp. 1170 (C.D. Cal. 1989), aff'd 914 F.2d 1256 (9th Cir. 1990) (First reported case of a claimed violation of Sherman Act section 2 as a result of alleged employee raiding or predatory hiring)

Government Entities

• We represent government entities in a variety of appellate circumstances. For example, Manatt attorneys recently obtained a landmark ruling from the Connecticut Supreme Court on behalf of our client, a legislative impeachment committee, in Office of the Governor v. The Select Committee, 850 A.2d 181 (Conn. 2004). In a case of first impression throughout the country, Connecticut's high court ruled that the committee could compel the testimony of a sitting governor. See also City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court, 13 Cal. 4th 232 (1996) (where deed is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence may be used to demonstrate fee transfer to city, defeating claims of transferor's heirs); City of Pasadena v. State, 14 Cal. App. 4th 810 (1993) (environmental impact of new probation facility properly analyzed; no due process claim because other cities paid for the move); Municipal Housing Auth. for the City of Yonkers v. NYS Emergency Fin. Ctl. Bd. for the City of Yonkers, 519 N.Y.S.2d 240 (App. Div. 1987) (public finance)

Employment

• Our lawyers have also regularly been involved in various kinds of employment litigation. See Local 28, Sheetmetal Workers v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421 (1986) (remedies for Title VII discrimination in union apprentice program); Pollis v. New School for Social Research, 132 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1997) (interpretation of Equal Pay Act and Title VII); Williams v. City of New Orleans, 729 F.2d 1554 (5th Cir. 1984; en banc) (application of equal protection guarantee to Title VII litigation; class action settlements); Bratton v. City of Detroit, 704 F.2d 878 (6th Cir. 1983) (analysis of affirmative action, equal protection, and Titlle VII); Faculty of CUNY Law School v. Murphy, 539 N.Y.S.2d 637 (App. Div. 1989) (university faculty tenure)

ERISA

• We have been trial and appellate defense counsel for a number of trustees and fiduciaries in lawsuits involving alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. E.g., Wyatt v. Masco Corp. Employee Disability Income Benefit Plan, 87 F.3d 1326 (9th Cir. 1996). (Standard of review is the standard established in the plan)

Financial Services

• Our counsel to banks, consumer finance companies, mortgage lenders and similar financial services companies facing action lawsuits has involved extensive experience litigating certification questions in trial and appellate courts

Government Contracts

• We represented NEC Business Communications Systems and Verizon California in the California Court of Appeal on two separate $1 billion contract disputes with the California Department of General Services

First Amendment

• Board of Trustees of SUNY v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469 (1989) (analysis of permissible restrictions on commercial speech); Young v. New York City Transit Auth., 903 F.2d 146 (2d Cir. 1990) (analysis of permissible restrictions on expressive conduct); Johnson Newspaper Corp. v. Morton, 862 F.2d 25 (2d Cir. 1988) (press access to court proceedings)

Elections

• We are regularly asked to litigate issues related to election laws. Such cases include McCauley v. BFP Direct Marketing, 16 Cal. App. 4th 1262 (1993) (interpretation of Political Reform Act); Escalante v. City of Hermosa Beach, 195 Cal. App. 3d 1009 (1987) (retroactivity of emergency amendment restricting third party delivery of absentee ballots); O'Conner v. Superior Court, 177 Cal. App. 3d 1013 (1986) (unfair business statutes do not apply to election campaign statements); Auerbach v. Rettaliata, 765 F.2d 350 (2d Cir. 1985) (residency requirement for students not unconstitutional)

Torts

• Smith v. Superior Court, 151 Cal. App. 3d 491 (1984), later appeal sub nom. Abbott Ford, Inc. v. Superior Court, 43 Cal. 3d 858 (1987). (First impression case recognizing the new American tort of intentional spoliation of evidence); Nestle v. City of Santa Monica, 6 Cal. 3d 920 (1972) (First impression case holding government agencies liable for nuisance; airport operator also held liable for maintaining dangerous condition of public property and for zoning violations); Scott v. County of Los Angeles, 27 Cal. App. 4th 125 (1994) (Jury allocation of fault between negligent and intentional tortfeasors)

Business Crimes

• Our attorneys serve the needs of businesses, individuals, and government organizations faced with investigations, charges or verdicts involving business crime allegations, handling such matters from trial to argument before appeals courts and the U.S. Supreme Court

Copyright

• Johnson v. Gordon, 409 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2005) (Summary judgment affirmed where plaintiff failed to show substantial similarity of allegedly copied work to copyrighted work)
• KISS Catalog, Ltd. v. Passport International Productions, Inc., 135 Fed. Appx. 116 (9th Cir. 2005) (No abuse of discretion in grant of preliminary injunction based on finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on claim for copyright infringement regarding sale of 1976 KISS concert DVD)
• Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc) (Assignee of claim for copyright infringement who has no legal or beneficial interest in the copyright lacks standing to sue for infringement under the Copyright Act)

Unfair Competition

• Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association, Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc., 421 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2005) (Defense summary judgment proper where plaintiff cannot show that competitor's condition on sale was unfair or misleading)