Jordan Brand Wings Unveils Air Jordan I Mid Subway, Celebrating NYC's MTA Crews 
Monster Beverage Sees Robust Growth with an 11.8% Revenue Surge 
Rishi Sunak wants to cut the cost of ‘sicknote’ Britain 
Biden Administration Set to Finalize Stricter EV Tax Credit Rules 
TikTok and Instagram are full of misleading information about birth control 
Mexico’s slow slide towards vigilante violence 
Kroger, Disney+ Considering Partnership to Add Streaming Service to Grocery Delivery Program 
China’s new world order: looking for clues from Xi’s recent meetings with foreign leaders 
Gym hygiene guide: the dangerous bacteria that lurk in dirty fitness equipment and clothes 
High interest rates aren’t going away anytime soon – a business economist explains why 
Why is the London Stock Exchange losing out to the US 
Evangelical bestsellers reveal diverse — and sometimes dangerous — ideas about morality 
Sony Pictures, Apollo Looking to Jointly Acquire Paramount, Propose $26 Billion Cash Deal 
KFC Japan Celebrates Children’s Day with Samurai Colonel Tradition 
The yen plunges to 34-year low despite interest rate hike 
Ferrari Unveils New 12Cilindri Models, Bolstering Its Petrol-Powered Lineup 
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.
