Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

Third Circuit Upholds Non-Compete Clause But Changes Unreasonable Restriction on Activity

July 22, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

As Illinois non-compete contract lawyers we were interested in a lengthy but substantial ruling from the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January. In Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Wood, No. 09-1526, 2010 WL 143682 (3d Cir. Jan. 15, 2010), the appellate court upheld a preliminary injunction to enforce a covenant not to compete against Matthew Wood, a former pyrotechnician and choreographer for Zambelli, and his new employer, Pyrotechnico. Wood left Zambelli after seven years and a substantial amount of training from the company. In the course of his employment, he signed two non-compete agreements, the second of which superseded the first. However, Zambelli changed from a family business to an investor-owned corporation in 2007, and asked Wood to assume substantial new duties. He declined, and left for Pyrotechnico in early 2008.

Wood’s second non-compete agreement with Zambelli said he would not be involved in the pyrotechnic business in any way for two years after leaving the company; and would provide three months’ notice before leaving. When he left for Pyrotechnico, Wood provided 11 days’ notice. He and Pyrotechnico say they tried to avoid work that would constitute a breach of the non-compete clause, which restricted Wood to duties like training and music editing. Nonetheless, Zambelli sued in Pennsylvania district court and obtained a preliminary injunction keeping Wood from designing or choreographing fireworks displays, or promoting Wood’s accomplishments at Zambelli. Wood and Pyrotechnico appealed, arguing that the 2007 sale of the company canceled Wood’s non-compete agreement; that the restrictive covenant does not protect a legitimate business interest; and arguing some technical issues.

On appeal, the Third maintained its diversity jurisdiction by dropping Pyrotechnico, an LLC that it determined had Pennsylvania citizenship, as a party. It then turned to Wood’s assertion that the 2007 stock sale changed Zambelli enough to make it a separate “purchasing business entity.” Wood argued that Zambelli’s failure to assign his agreement to the “new entity” invalidated the agreement. The Third rejected this argument, saying that a sale of stock is not the same as a wholesale transfer of assets under Pennsylvania law.

Wood had no more luck with his argument that the agreement itself was unenforceable because it did not protect Zambelli’s legitimate business interests. Previous Third Circuit decisions have held that legitimate business interests include trade secrets, confidential information, specialized training, extraordinary skills and customer goodwill. Victaulic Co. v. Tieman, 499 F.3d 227, 235 (3d Cir. 2007). This allowed the Third to agree with the district court that Zambelli had a legitimate business interests to protect with an injunction. Wood had a longstanding relationship with Zambelli’s customers, the court said, and they viewed him as an expert in the industry. Similarly, Zambelli had provided Wood specialized training and skills, and had a legitimate business interest in protecting it. However, because the district court had failed to require Zambelli to post a bond, the Third vacated the injunction and remanded the case with instructions to require a bond if the court decides to reimpose the injunction.

Generic Drugs Not Misbranded Under Lanham Act, Seventh Circuit Rules

July 14, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

A recent decision by the Seventh Circuit caught the notice of our Illinois trademark infringement litigators. Schering-Plough Healthcare Products Inc. v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc. et al, Nos. 09-1438, 09-1462, 09-1601 (7th Cir. Oct. 29, 2009) is a dispute between the original maker of a laxative whose patent has expired and the companies that now manufacture a generic version. Schering, the original patent holder, sued four companies for claiming that the drug’s active ingredient is not available over the counter, when Schering does manufacture an over-the-counter version. The trial court in the case dismissed Schering’s complaint, a decision the Seventh Circuit upholds here.

The laxative in question was originally sold as the prescription drug MiraLAX. After its patent expired, the four defendants were authorized to sell generic prescription versions, either as GlycoLax or under the chemical name polyethylene glycol 3350. All four defendants’ drugs have labels stating that the active ingredients in their drugs are sold only by prescription. This is a requirement of the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, but it is no longer entirely true. After the generic versions were approved, Schering won approval for an over-the-counter version of MiraLAX. It brought a trademark lawsuit against the defendants, claiming their labeling makes false and misleading statements that misrepresent the nature of their own and Schering’s products, and constitute misbranding under the FD&C Act.

Importantly, the FDA is conducting its own investigation into whether the generic drugs are now misbranded. Simultaneous sales of the same active ingredient in generic and over-the-counter versions violates federal law, which the FDA is also trying to resolve. The Seventh Circuit noted that the FDA may resolve Schering’s lawsuit by finding that the generic drugs may no longer be sold, or that their labels are not false and misleading under the FD&C Act. In either case, the court wrote, it would rather defer that decision to the FDA. This was also the decision of the trial court in the case, which dismissed Schering’s case without prejudice, suggesting that the company re-file after the FDA’s decision, if necessary. Schering appealed, asking for a judgment in its favor rather than a trial. The defendants cross-appealed, arguing that the case should have been dismissed with prejudice.

The Seventh started by noting that a dismissal without prejudice is appealable unless the defect leading to it is immediately curable. It then turned to the merits of Schering’s claim. Letters from FDA regulators the company cited are irrelevant, the court said, because they did not determine the final outcome of the agency’s review. It also dismissed Schering’s argument that the generic drugs were misbranded under the FD&C Act because their labels say “prescription only,” noting that prescription drugs are required to carry this warning. And it noted that federal courts have previously resolved conflicts between FDA labeling requirements and intellectual property law, including in SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, L.P. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 211 F.3d 21 (2d Cir. 2000).

Schering has been “coy” about what kind of labeling it would find sufficient on the generic drugs, the court wrote, leaving suggested wording out of its briefs entirely and agreeing with suggested wording only under pressure at oral arguments. That reticence, the court wrote, made it believe this is not a matter that “can be resolved intelligently without a decision by the FDA.” Because it has more experience with how consumers interact with drug labeling, the court said, the FDA should decide on proper labeling before a Lanham Act claim is filed. Thus, the Seventh Circuit upheld the trial court’s decision to dismiss Schering’s claim in anticipation of the FDA’s ruling. For the same reason, however, it also upheld the district court’s decision to dismiss without prejudice — so Schering can re-file its claim, if necessary, in the future.

Automated Debt-Collection Lawsuits Engulf Courts

July 13, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Automated Debt-Collection Lawsuits Engulf Courts

By ANDREW MARTIN

Published: July 12, 2010

Small Businesses File Several Alleged Extortion Lawsuits Against Review Site Yelp

July 6, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Our Chicago online business libel attorneys were interested to see a series of articles about several ongoing lawsuits against online review website Yelp.com. According to a March 19 article from the Associated Press, multiple businesses allege the site demanded advertising dollars from them in exchange for control over negative and positive reviews. When potential advertisers declined, the lawsuits say, negative reviews appear or reappear. At least ten small businesses are part of a putative class action lawsuit filed in Los Angeles federal court — among them a Chicago bakery and a Washington, D.C. restaurant. At least two similar claims have been filed, both in California.

The ten-plaintiff lawsuit alleges extortion and attempted extortion by Yelp, saying it gained money “by means of wrongful acts and practices.” For example, the owner of Chicago’s Bleeding Heart Bakery said Yelp employees told her they would push bad reviews to the end of the list of reviews on the bakery’s Yelp page, in exchange for a paid sponsorship. The owner of a Long Beach, Calif. animal hospital said when he declined to pay for a sponsorship, a bad review that had previously disappeared from the page reappeared. A second bad review appeared later. Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman said reviews come and go because the company uses a computer program to automatically remove reviews flagged as suspicious, such as negative reviews by a direct competitor. He claimed the only manipulation Yelp does is allowing companies to pick a positive review to place at the top of the site.

On April 6, Yelp called a news conference to announce changes it made to its site in response to the allegations. The site removed its “favorite review” feature that allowed business owners to choose a positive review for the top of the site. It will also allow users to see which reviews were filtered out, either because they were suspicious or because they violated review guidelines or terms of service. At the conference, Yelp announced future plans to form a Small Business Advisory Council to address these issues. Attorneys involved in the Yelp lawsuits said these were a step in the right direction, but declined to drop their claims.

As Highland Park, Ill. Internet product disparagement attorneys and Chicago business law lawyers, we’re not surprised that these businesses are claiming extortion rather than product disparagement. Under the federal Communications Decency Act, websites that host content provided by third-party users are not legally responsible for any content that is defamatory, negligent or otherwise legally actionable. That means Yelp is not responsible for defamatory postings by its users, even if it exercises editorial control over those postings. However, it may be responsible for content it provides itself. For that reason, small businesses like these plaintiffs have limited recourse in mnay instances to recover for online trade libel, even if they otherwise have strong cases. The extortion claims offer no such legal problem.

Best Websites on the Internet for Class Action and Consumer Law Issues — The National Consumer Law Center Unveils its New Website

June 25, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

The National Consumer Law Center has improved what already was one of the best websites on the internet for consumer law and class-action issues with a brand new website. NCLC encourages

you to take a look around the website and discover all it has to offer. In a time of historic changes in consumer financial regulation, it contains a treasure trove of cutting-edge information and resources for lawyers, consumer advocates, policymakers, and the public.

The website describes state consumer protection and fraud laws:

Seventh Circuit Rules UPS Violated ERISA by Raising Contributions for Only Some Retirees

June 24, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

As Chicago class-action attorneys, we were pleased to see that the Seventh Circuit upheld a decision in favor of retired UPS employees protesting a change in their employee contributions to health benefits. In Green v. UPS Health & Welfare Package for Retired Employees, No. 09-2445 (7th Cir. Feb. 10, 2010), a class of participants in the UPS retiree health plan (the Plan) belonging to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 705 challenged a decision by UPS to raise the amount of health insurance contributions required of them, but not of other plan participants.

UPS employs Teamsters and negotiates its collective bargaining agreements with the international office of the IBT as well as with a few locals, including Local 705. Local 705’s agreement at issue here was negotiated in 2002 and expired on July 31, 2008. That agreement said UPS would provide the same health plan to Local 705 retirees that it provides to all retirees. The Plan said UPS may raise participants’ contributions once a certain threshold average annual cost per participant is reached, but that each employee shall share equally in the cost. If an additional contribution is retired, the Plan said additional contributions would not be required until after the collective bargaining agreement ended.

The average annual cost of health care rose above the threshold in 2006. In October of 2007, UPS sent out a notice that retirees’ monthly contributions would increase from $50 to $114 as of January 1, 2008. The international union complained that the increase was being implemented too early, before the July 31 end of the original collective bargaining agreement. However, it was also negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement with UPS at the time and eventually won an agreement from UPS not to implement the new fee until after the new agreement expired. This was not the case for Local 705, which complained that it wouldn’t even start a new bargaining process until July 31. UPS responded by delaying the extra payment until after the agreement expired.

After the July 31, 2008 expiration date, Local 705 negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement incorporating the Plan with no changes. In January of 2009, UPS sent out another letter saying that effective in February, it would increase retirees’ monthly contributions from $50 to $157.58 to $472.75, depending on how many family members were covered. This was not applied to the international Teamsters, who were under a separate agreement. The Local 705 retirees filed this lawsuit, arguing that their monthly contribution, higher than the international union’s, violated the Plan’s provision that all retirees would share equally in a rate hike. They also argued that the Plan barred UPS from making the rate hike effective before the end of their collective bargaining agreement. They asked for an injunction against the rate hike and agreed to a bench trial. The court found for the retirees on the “shared equally” issue and for UPS on the timing of the rate hike. Both appealed.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the trial court that the “shared equally” language applied to payments. UPS had argued that this language applies to how it calculates contributions, but the Seventh and the district court both found this was contradicted by the plain language of the Plan and thus “arbitrary and capricious” under Hess v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 274 F.3d 456, 461 (7th Cir. 2001).

However, the appeals court also upheld the district court’s ruling that UPS could collect the additional contributions before the end of the current collective bargaining agreement. UPS interpreted “current” to refer to the 2002 agreement, when the Plan’s language was written; Local 705 interpreted it to refer to the 2008 agreement. The Seventh found that the interpretation by UPS was reasonable, in part because it had incorporated the Plan into the collective bargaining agreement without changes. It also said the December 2007 notice that rates would go up was further evidence that UPS was using the 2002 agreement as “current.” Thus, its interpretation was not arbitrary and capricious. The judgment of the district court was affirmed on both counts.

Name of Start-Up Business Sparks Trademark Infringement Suit

June 24, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal reported on the perils faced by start-up business when faced with a trade mark infringement lawsuit filed against it by a large established corporation:

Jimmy Winkelmann started a clothing company several years ago to mock fellow students who wore the outdoorsy The North Face brand, despite having no inclination to venture into the wilderness. He dubbed his company “The South Butt” and flipped The North Face’s half-dome logo to look like buttocks.

But at least one party wasn’t amused: The North Face.

Video Exposing Car Repair Fraud

June 19, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Our Geneva, Illinois consumer rights private law firm handles individual and class action predatory lending, unfair debt collection, lemon law and other consumer fraud cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Illinois Attorney General may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. The Chicago consumer attorneys at Lubin Austermuehle are proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers’ rights are protected from consumer rip-offs and unscrupulous or dishonest practices.

Our Elmhurst consumer attorneys provide assistance in fair debt collection, consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago consumer protection attorneys who can assist in consumer fraud, consumer rip-off, lemon law, unfair debt collection, predatory lending, wage claims, unpaid overtime and other consumer, or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

You can view our Oak Brook and Chicago attorneys listings on Super Lawyers. Super Lawyers only selects 5% of the attorneys in the State to receive the Super Lawyer designation.

FTC’s Top Consumer Rip-Offs — Our Chicago Consumer Attorneys Can Help You Recover Monies Lost on Consumer Scams

June 18, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Our Aurora, Illinois consumer rights private law firm handles individual and class action predatory lending, unfair debt collection, lemon law and other consumer fraud cases that government agencies and public interest law firms such as the Illinois Attorney General may not pursue. Class action lawsuits our law firm has been involved in or spear-headed have led to substantial awards totalling over a million dollars to organizations including the National Association of Consumer Advocates, the National Consumer Law Center, and local law school consumer programs. The Chicago consumer lawyers at Lubin Austermuehle are proud of our achievements in assisting national and local consumer rights organizations obtain the funds needed to ensure that consumers are protected and informed of their rights. By standing up to consumer fraud and consumer rip-offs, and in the right case filing consumer protection lawsuits and class-actions you too can help ensure that other consumers’ rights are protected from consumer rip-offs and unscrupulous or dishonest practices.

Our Evanston and Hinsdale consumer attorneys provide assistance in fair debt collection, consumer fraud and consumer rights cases including in Illinois and throughout the country. You can click here to see a description of the some of the many individual and class-action consumer cases we have handled. A video of our lawsuit which helped ensure more fan friendly security at Wrigley Field can be found here. You can contact one of our Chicago consumer protection attorneys who can assist in consumer fraud, consumer rip-off, lemon law, unfair debt collection, predatory lending, wage claims, unpaid overtime and other consumer, or consumer class action cases by filling out the contact form at the side of this blog or by clicking here.

You can view our Oak Brook and Chicago attorneys listings on Super Lawyers. Super Lawyers only selects 5% of the attorneys in the State to receive the Super Lawyer designation.

Best Websites for Consumer Law and Class Action Issues — The Latest Version of the U.S. Government’s Consumer Action Handbook

June 17, 2010 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

The Federal Government has set up a consumer action website that contains insightful and detailed information about how consumers can protect their rights in many different types of consumer transactions. The website also has a link to the new Consumer Action Handbook. It describes the Consumer Action Handbook as follows:

This everyday guide to being a smart shopper is hot off the press and chock-full of helpful tips about preventing identity theft, understanding credit, filing a consumer complaint, and much more. In the 2010 edition, you’ll find updated information about filing for bankruptcy, finding a lawyer, and planning a funeral, along with many other useful topics.

You can view a pdf copy of the 2010 Consumer Action Handbook here.