This case involves two women who sued the City of Fullerton and a police officer, alleging sexual harassment during their arrests by the officer, including inappropriate touching and propositions, along with the city's alleged failure to address prior similar complaints. The court considered the city's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' eight claims (federal civil rights and state tort claims) and on punitive damages. The court denied summary judgment on all claims, finding triable issues regarding whether the city had prior knowledge of the officer's pattern of misconduct based on complaints from multiple women and failed to respond adequately, potentially indicating deliberate indifference or a custom of ignoring such issues. However, the court granted summary judgment on punitive damages because public entities cannot be held liable for them under applicable law.
The case involved a dispute under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act between the Orange County Health Care Agency and parents of a special-needs student over whether the agency denied the student a free appropriate public education by failing to offer residential placement, following an administrative law judge's decision ordering reimbursement for one placement but not another. The agency filed a complaint seeking to reverse the ALJ ruling, and the parents responded with a late cross-appeal seeking additional reimbursement plus counterclaims under the Rehabilitation Act, Civil Rights Act, and Unruh Act. The court denied the agency's motion to dismiss the cross-appeal, reasoning that the IDEA permits parties to bring original civil actions in district court and introduce new evidence without being barred by res judicata. It granted the motion to dismiss the other counterclaims for failing to meet pleading standards but allowed leave to amend, and denied the parents' improperly filed request for leave to amend.
This case involves Filipino teachers who were recruited for H-1B visa teaching positions in U.S. schools and allege they were subjected to unexpected additional recruitment fees, threats of deportation, and other coercive practices by recruiters including defendants Navarro and UPI. The plaintiffs brought claims including RICO violations based on predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, forced labor, human trafficking, extortion, and violations of a California employment agency statute. The court granted the motion to dismiss as to the RICO claims predicated on mail and wire fraud but denied it as to the remaining claims. The core reasoning was that the initial recruitment contract was a voluntary exchange, but the later undisclosed fees combined with threats of financial loss and deportation plausibly stated claims for forced labor, trafficking, extortion, and related violations, while the fraud predicates lacked sufficient particularity.
The case concerned a motion by defendants to stay a pending arbitration under a license agreement while a related patent infringement lawsuit proceeded in federal court. Plaintiff BioMagic had demanded arbitration for breach of the agreement's royalty provisions and later sued for patent infringement after a patent issued on its product. The court denied the motion, holding that the agreement's choice-of-law clause selecting California law did not demonstrate the parties' clear intent to apply the California Arbitration Act's section 1281.2(c) provision allowing a stay in cases of related litigation, instead leaving the Federal Arbitration Act to govern; the court further found that defendants had not satisfied the statute's requirements and declined to exercise any discretion to stay the arbitration.
The case involved a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which plaintiff Ian McCown alleged that police officers violated his constitutional rights by repeatedly tasering him, including in the genitals, while he was handcuffed on the ground. After most claims were dismissed on summary judgment, the remaining claim settled for $20,000 on the eve of trial, with the parties stipulating that McCown was the prevailing party entitled to seek attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The court granted the motion for fees and costs but reduced the requested $332,151 in fees to $148,250 (while awarding the full $15,034.10 in costs) after calculating reasonable hourly rates and hours, then making downward adjustments. The core reasoning applied Hensley v. Eckerhart to assess the relatedness of claims, the level of success obtained compared to the relief sought, the meaningful public benefit conferred, and reductions for unnecessary hours spent on acrimonious or procedural matters.
This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by California state prisoner Samuel B. Sanchez challenging his 2004 convictions for second-degree robbery and felon-in-possession of a firearm, along with related sentencing enhancements, following a jury trial in Riverside County Superior Court. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the petition in full and ordering dismissal with prejudice. The court found that Petitioner's claims, which included challenges to evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, ineffective assistance of counsel, and sentencing, failed to demonstrate that the state courts' decisions were contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), or involved an unreasonable determination of the facts. The opinion reviewed the procedural history of direct appeals and state habeas petitions, presumed the state appellate court's factual findings correct, and concluded that no evidentiary hearing was required as the record was sufficient.
