US Northeast Airports Resume Operations After Telecom Outage Disrupts Thousands of Flights 
Google promotes ‘teacher approved’ apps for kids. Here’s what parents should know 
OpenAI Urges US-Led Global Standards for Frontier AI 
Petrobras Joins Brazil Diesel Subsidy Program 
Nike Earnings at Risk as UBS Cuts Price Target to $42 
Oil Prices Rise as U.S.-Iran Talks Fuel Diplomacy Hopes 
The ghost of Robodebt – Federal Court rules billions of dollars in welfare debts must be recalculated 
Gold Prices Slip as Strong Dollar and Hawkish Fed Pressure Bullion 
SpaceX Nasdaq 100 Weight to More Than Double in Rebalance 
1 in 3 uni students experience serious financial hardship. Could concession cards for all help? 
The Beauty Beneath the Expressway: A Journey from Self to Service 
Heritage, desire and diplomacy: why China still values scotch whisky 
Paramount-Warner Bros $110 Billion Deal Draws Antitrust Backlash 
CNN, MS NOW and Politico Sue Trump Over White House Media Ban 
Westinghouse Targets $50 Billion Valuation in U.S. IPO 
China Reviews Broadcom Switch Use in State Data Centres 
Add as a preferred source on Google
A federal judge has dismissed a 2019 lawsuit against Starbucks, filed by Balmuccino LLC, accusing the coffee giant of stealing its coffee-flavored lip balm trade secrets. The judge ruled that Balmuccino LLC waited too long to file the case in federal court.
The trade secret claim against Starbucks is over after a federal judge dismisses the lawsuit on technical grounds. The case was said to have been filed after the company launched its S'mores Frapuccino lip gloss in 2019.
According to Courthouse News Service, Starbucks was cleared because the complainant, Balmuccino LLC, waited too long to file the lawsuit in federal court. The latter sued SB for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. Still, U.S. District Judge John Chun explained that the case was tossed out because of the lack of jurisdiction over Starbucks since it was filed in a state court in California.
The judge sided with Starbucks after applying Washington state law instead of the more lenient California state law. He referred to the former to answer whether Balmuccino could still go after its claims after the statute of limitations expired.
"Balmuccino draws on California's more forgiving tolling law to argue that declining to toll the statutes of limitations during the pendency of the state-court action is bad public policy," Judge Chun stated. "Balmuccino may have a point that requiring a plaintiff to concurrently file separate actions in two different jurisdictions is inefficient and laborious. Yet this is the tolling policy that Washington has apparently adopted."
He added, "Even assuming that Balmuccino reasonably asserted personal jurisdiction in California at the outset of litigation, Balmuccino was on notice that it might need to file elsewhere at least as of June 2020, prior to the expiration of the limitations periods lessens the force of its policy argument that it would be unfair or redundant to have to concurrently file multiple suits in multiple jurisdictions."
In response to the dismissal of the lawsuit, Reuters reported that Eduardo Martorell, Balmuccino's lawyer, said they think the case was wrongly decided, so they will appeal the decision or re-file the suit in New York. He added that they would not stop fighting until the courts allow Balmuccino to be heard on the merits.
