Plaintiff buyers sought review of an order from the Superior Court of San Mateo County (California), which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdictDefendant sellers sought review of an order from the trial court, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial, and entered a permanent injunction in favor of plaintiffs after a jury found in favor of defendants in an action regarding business name confusionAn EEOC lawyer represented respondent.
Overview
This was an action for trade name infringement and unfair competitionDefendant sellers sold their catering business to plaintiff buyers and agreed to not compete with plaintiffsAfter a 9-3 jury verdict in favor of defendants, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial, denied plaintiffs’ motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and entered a permanent injunction in favor of plaintiffsBoth parties appealed, and the court affirmed the trial court’s judgments except for the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdictThe court found that there was overwhelming evidence that defendants’ reentry into the catering business under the name used created confusionThe court found that the evidence required the entry of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Outcome
The court affirmed the trial court’s order, which granted plaintiff buyers’ motion for a new trial, and entered a permanent injunction in favor of plaintiffsThe court reversed the trial court’s order, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdictThe court found that there was overwhelming evidence that defendant sellers’ reentry into the catering business under the name used created confusion.
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-A mortgage loan servicer’s declaration of compliance in a notice of default did not satisfy the requirement that the servicer provide a statement that the mortgagor was entitled to copies of mortgage documents showing the right of the servicer to foreclose; [2]-Bare allegation that an employee of an entity other than the servicer signed foreclosure documents without review failed to allege improper robosigning since the mortgagor failed to show that the employee did not have authority to sign the documents and that the employee failed to conduct proper due diligence; [3]-A claim of wrongful foreclosure was precluded since there was no foreclosure sale of the mortgagor’s property; [4]-Although imminent foreclosure constituted an injury, the injury was caused by the mortgagor’s default rather than any unfair or deceptive practices of the servicer.
Outcome
Motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part.
