In this employment dispute, plaintiff Grabowski sued his former employer C.H. Robinson Co. and related entities on behalf of himself and others, alleging improper classification as an exempt employee and resulting failures to pay overtime compensation under California and federal law, along with related claims for inaccurate wage statements and unfair competition. Defendants moved to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay the action pursuant to a Dispute Resolution provision in a signed Bonus Incentive Agreement that required mediation followed by binding individual arbitration of all employment-related claims, including those under the FLSA and California Labor Code. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration after finding the agreement enforceable, rejecting claims of procedural and substantive unconscionability under California law as interpreted post-AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, and determining there were no genuine issues of material fact warranting a jury trial or additional discovery on contract formation. It denied plaintiff's request for broader discovery and a jury trial on arbitrability issues, then administratively closed the case without prejudice.
This case involved a blind plaintiff who sued Optimum Health Institute (a non-profit religious organization offering a holistic health program) and its leader under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act and Disabled Persons Act, alleging denial of access to the program because of her disability, including refusals related to her use of a cane and a service animal. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment in part, ruling that defendants violated the statutes by refusing to allow her to attend alone with a cane, but denied summary judgment on the service animal issue due to remaining factual disputes and denied the defendants' motion entirely. The core reasoning was that OHI operates as a business establishment and place of public accommodation open to the general public without requiring adherence to specific religious beliefs, making the anti-discrimination laws applicable; the court found no basis for constitutional avoidance or exemption based on the organization's religious ties, as the statutes' application satisfied any applicable free exercise analysis.
In United States v. Uribe-Sanchez, the defendant, who had adjusted to legal permanent resident status after entering from Mexico, was indicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for illegal reentry following prior deportations in 1994 and 1995 based on a 1994 California conviction for violating Health & Safety Code § 11352(a). The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment, contending that the deportation orders were invalid because the immigration judge had erroneously informed him that he was ineligible for any relief from deportation. The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the underlying removal proceedings deprived the defendant of due process by failing to advise him of plausible forms of relief such as a section 212(c) waiver, even though the conviction was later determined not to qualify as an aggravated felony, rendering the deportations fundamentally unfair under the standards of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d).
This case is a patent infringement lawsuit brought by AntiCancer, Inc. against Fujifilm and GE Healthcare, Inc., involving three patents on methods for using fluorescent proteins like GFP to track tumor metastasis and image gene expression in live animals for testing cancer treatments. GE moved to dismiss the claims against it for contributory infringement and inducement of infringement. The court denied the motion, finding that AntiCancer had not adequately alleged contributory infringement because the devices were suitable for substantial non-infringing uses, but had sufficiently pled inducement by alleging GE's knowledge of the patents, its advertising of infringing uses, and its customers' actual infringement following Fujifilm's related activities. The operative complaint details AntiCancer's licensing negotiations with Fujifilm and GE's subsequent marketing of similar imaging systems.
This case involves a dispute over two own-occupation disability insurance policies issued in the 1980s. After receiving benefits for over a decade due to diagnosed mental health conditions, the plaintiff entered into a 2001 settlement agreement ending prior litigation; he now seeks rescission of that agreement on grounds of undue influence, along with claims for breach of contract and bad faith arising from the insurer's termination of benefits. The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of material fact regarding whether the settlement can be rescinded under California law based on evidence of the parties' relationship, the plaintiff's condition, and the circumstances of the agreement. The court further held that if rescission is available, the statute of limitations on the breach and bad faith claims may be equitably tolled, and additional discovery on those claims is warranted.
This case involves plaintiff Cynthia Sommer's civil lawsuit against San Diego County prosecutors, the county medical examiner, and the United States, stemming from her prior conviction for murdering her husband, a Marine sergeant whose 2002 death was initially ruled natural but later attributed to arsenic poisoning based on testing by a military lab. Sommer alleges the defendants ignored autopsy findings of cardiac arrhythmia, pursued contaminated or unreliable arsenic tests despite known chain-of-custody issues and expert doubts, and targeted her based on personal factors rather than evidence, in violation of her rights. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986, the Federal Tort Claims Act, and for injunctive relief. It denied the prosecutors' motion as to the § 1983 claim but granted it regarding future prosecution injunctions; granted the medical examiner's motion on supervisory liability, conspiracy claims, and injunctions but denied it otherwise; and granted the United States' motion on sovereign immunity grounds for the conspiracy claims. The rulings rested on analyses of standing, immunity doctrines, pleading standards for constitutional violations, and the scope of available relief.
