Docket – October 5, 2018

U.S. District Court – Eastern District of Virginia

Juul Labs Inc. v. The Unincorporated Ass’ns Identified in Sch. A., EDVA at Alexandria (O’Grady).

The court granted a temporary restraining order requested by Juul Labs, an e-cigarette company, against several entities allegedly “promoting, advertising, marketing, retailing, offering for sale, distributing, and selling counterfeit products” bearing Juul trademarks.” The defendants are unknown individuals identified by their eBay or AliExpress seller ID or store name.

U.S. District Court – Western Virginia

Snipes v. S.W. Reg’l Jail Auth., WDVA at Abingdon (Jones).

The plaintiff stated a claim against his former employer for retaliating against him after he exercised his rights under the Family Medical Leave Act. According to the complaint, he was a distinguished employee who had not been advised of any performance problems. He took a month of FMLA leave, and his employer questioned his use of leave, was hostile towards him, and stated that he needed to return to work. A month after he returned, his employer terminated him on grounds that he belittled a subordinate. Moreover, the temporal relationship between FMLA leave and his termination is sufficient to plausibly infer causality at the motion to dismiss stage. However, the court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s FMLA interference claim.

Virginia Circuit Courts

Kim v. Giant of Md. LLC, Fairfax (Oblon).

A plaintiff may nonsuit in circuit court a claim appealed from general district court where the GDC sustained a motion to strike and entered judgment in favor of the defendant. But in light of Robert & Bertha Robinson Family LLC v. Allen, 295 Va. 130 (2018), the plaintiff must wait until the GDC’s rulings are annulled. That is, a party may not nonsuit in circuit court a claim appealed from GDC until the trial de novo on the merits commences.

In re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Litigation, Fairfax (White).

The court has specific jurisdiction over German auto companies that alleged installed a “cheat device” on vehicles to feign compliance with American emissions standards. The court has jurisdiction under Virginia’s long-arm statute because the defendants allegedly disseminated fraudulent advertising within the Commonwealth. They created substantial contacts with Fairfax County, and the complaint alleges that separate corporate entity structure is blurred as to aspects of marketing and advertising.

Motion to dismiss denied.

 



Categories: Daily Dockets

%d bloggers like this: