William Q. Hayes

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

civil rightsreligious liberty

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).

immigrationcriminal law

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedurehealthcare

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.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedurefederal power

In this case, plaintiffs Peter and Lydia Chaconas sued JP Morgan Chase Bank after the bank allegedly continued sending letters, billing statements, and making numerous phone calls despite written cease-and-desist orders from their attorney disputing the debt and directing all communications to counsel. The First Amended Complaint asserted violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act along with state-law claims for invasion of privacy, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tort in se, and libel, alleging that the contacts caused severe emotional distress and physical injury. On Chase's motion to dismiss and motion to strike, the court denied dismissal of the invasion-of-privacy and intentional-infliction claims, dismissed the negligence, tort-in-se, and libel claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), and denied the motion to strike requests for statutory damages and certain allegations. The court applied the Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards to evaluate whether the factual allegations plausibly supported each cause of action and found the motion-to-strike requests procedurally inappropriate. The court also noted federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case concerns a condominium purchaser who alleged that the unit was substantially smaller than represented in the sales contract and marketing materials provided by the developers, leading to claims against the developers (Bosa), the project lenders (Bank of Nova Scotia and HSBC), and the escrow/title company (First American) for issues including contract interpretation, disclaimers about square footage, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and equitable lien. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint and a motion to strike. It granted the motions in part and denied in part as to Bosa, dismissing the unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and equitable lien claims without prejudice; granted the motions in full as to the Lenders and First American, dismissing all claims against them without prejudice; and denied the motion for class certification without prejudice to refiling consistent with the remaining claims and parties. The core reasoning was that the complaint failed to adequately allege the required elements for the dismissed claims or to show that certain equitable remedies were available against the defendants.

propertybusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Love v. Scribner, an African-American petitioner challenged his state court conviction for battery by a prisoner, claiming the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to exclude the only remaining African-American juror on the basis of race. Following a Ninth Circuit remand for an evidentiary hearing on the Batson claim, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus unless the petitioner is retried within a reasonable time. The court found that the prosecutor's stated reason for the strike (excluding social workers and teachers) was not credible and was pretextual based on comparative analysis with other jurors who were allowed to serve and the prosecutor's inconsistent explanations, violating the Equal Protection Clause.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved former correctional officers suing their private employer in state court for wrongful termination after they reported unsafe working conditions to DHS during an investigation into an inmate assault; they sought to depose the DHS agent with relevant knowledge, but DHS denied the request under its Touhy regulations because it would divert employee time and resources from official duties. Plaintiffs challenged the denial in federal court under the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious. The court granted DHS's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, upholding the denial on the grounds that the agency had rationally applied the regulatory factors without abusing its discretion.

procedurelabor & employmentcivil rights

The SEC sued Ran H. Furman, former CFO of Island Pacific (now Retail Pro), along with other executives, alleging they orchestrated a scheme to inflate the company's reported revenues by 22-140% through a sham $3.9 million software licensing deal with QQQ Systems that had no economic substance, involved no cash exchange, and was offset by a reciprocal purchase never properly documented. Other defendants consented to judgments with penalties, bars, and disgorgement, while the SEC moved for summary judgment against Furman on claims including securities fraud, issuer reporting violations, record-keeping failures, misrepresentations to accountants, and internal control breaches. The court examined evidence such as conflicting license agreements, fabricated documents, Furman's role in revenue recognition and firing a whistleblower, and accounting standards like SOP 97-2 showing the fee was not fixed or determinable, in support of granting the motion.

business & regulatory

This case involved a state prisoner who sued several prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that a 39-day lockdown at Calipatria State Prison violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him outdoor exercise. The plaintiff had been transferred to the prison after a riot involving Hispanic inmates and staff, during which the facility remained on lockdown for security reasons. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no constitutional violation occurred and that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issues of material fact regarding an Eighth Amendment violation and concluding that the officials were protected by qualified immunity due to the legitimate security concerns justifying the lockdown measures.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involved a conservation group and an individual suing the National Marine Fisheries Service and related federal officials, along with the City of San Diego, over the agency's position that Section 109(h) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act allows the City to remove seals from La Jolla Children's Pool Beach without a federal permit as part of its official duties. Plaintiffs sought judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act to require a permit and prevent the agency from delegating interpretive authority to the City, claiming that NMFS statements had influenced state court proceedings on seal dispersal. The court granted the federal defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It held that the complaint failed to allege any final agency action reviewable under APA Section 704, as the referenced NMFS statements and positions did not constitute actions with legal consequences, unlike final environmental reviews in other cases. The court noted that sovereign immunity requires a specific statutory waiver, which was not properly invoked here without such final action.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

In Lorenzo v. Qualcomm Inc., an end consumer of cell phones sued Qualcomm, alleging that its licensing practices for CDMA patents—such as offering discriminatory royalty rates tied to chipset purchases, collecting double royalties from component and handset makers, and violating FRAND commitments—amounted to anticompetitive conduct that harmed competition in the CDMA chipset market and caused injury to consumers, in violation of federal and state antitrust laws as well as unfair competition and unjust enrichment doctrines. The court granted Qualcomm's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. It reasoned that the plaintiff, as an indirect purchaser, lacked standing to pursue damages claims under the antitrust laws; that the complaint failed to adequately allege antitrust injury or a cognizable claim for unjust enrichment under California law; and that other state-law claims were either preempted, insufficiently pleaded, or not independently viable, while granting leave to amend.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, a state prisoner sued several prison officials alleging they deprived him of outdoor exercise for 39 days as punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and retaliated against him for filing grievances in violation of the First Amendment. The court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the Eighth Amendment claim, concluding that the complaint sufficiently alleged both the objective element (deprivation of a basic human need close in duration to deprivations recognized in prior cases) and the subjective element (deliberate indifference through knowledge and approval of the lockdown). The court also denied qualified immunity, determining that reasonable officials would have understood the extended denial of exercise to be unconstitutional even during a lockdown. Claims against one defendant not named in the operative complaint were dismissed.

civil rightscriminal law

The case involved plaintiff Holly Hermanson, who sued defendant Bert Hunter and the U.S. Attorney General to enforce a California child support judgment against Hunter, who was in the federal witness protection program; she sought disclosure of his identity and location under 18 U.S.C. § 3523(b)(1) after unsuccessful attempts to collect approximately $60,000 in arrears. The Attorney General moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Hermanson had not satisfied the statutory prerequisite of requesting disclosure from the Attorney General before filing suit. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice, holding that requests made to an attorney in the U.S. Marshal’s Service did not meet the requirement because waivers of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed and the statute specifically requires contact with the Attorney General. Jurisdictional prerequisites cannot be excused on equitable grounds.

family lawprocedurefederal power

The case involved the San Diego Minutemen, an unincorporated association advocating stricter immigration enforcement, which had its Adopt-A-Highway permit revoked by Caltrans after being accepted into the program and having courtesy signs installed along Interstate 5 near a border patrol facility. The plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, alleging violations of its First Amendment free speech rights, equal protection, and due process due to the revocation, which was justified by Caltrans on grounds of public safety risks from potential adverse reactions to the group's message. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The core reasoning was that the permit revocation appeared to be based on the content or viewpoint of the plaintiff's speech rather than content-neutral safety concerns, as evidenced by selective enforcement and deposition testimony linking the decision to expected community reactions, which does not qualify as a permissible secondary effect under First Amendment precedents.

immigrationfree speechcivil rights

The case involved a Somali national convicted of carjacking who was ordered removed and held in post-removal immigration detention by ICE for over nine months. Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming continued detention violated Zadvydas v. Davis because there was no significant likelihood of actual removal to Somalia in the reasonably foreseeable future due to warzone conditions, lack of travel documents, and failed prior efforts. Respondents countered that removal was imminent, citing plans for a costly charter flight within thirty days, but provided limited supporting evidence. The court ruled that petitioner met the threshold showing of no foreseeable removal and respondents failed to rebut it, ordering supplemental briefs on conditional release under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3).

immigration

Anthony Penton filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his California state conviction and sentence under the Three Strikes law, raising claims of violations of confrontation rights, due process, the Ex Post Facto Clause, vagueness, ineffective assistance of counsel, insufficient evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full after neither party filed objections, denying all claims for relief. The core reasoning was that the state courts' decisions were consistent with clearly established federal constitutional standards, that certain claims were procedurally barred, and that the petitioner had not demonstrated prejudice from any alleged errors.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over the proper calculation of long-term disability benefits under an ERISA plan issued by Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company to an anesthesiologist whose compensation varied monthly based on billings. Following remand from the Ninth Circuit to apply the abuse-of-discretion standard articulated in Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Insurance Co., the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted the plaintiff’s motion and denied the defendant’s, holding that the insurer abused its discretion by treating the plaintiff as a salaried employee and basing benefits on a single month’s earnings rather than averaging covered monthly earnings over the 24 months preceding disability as required by the policy language. The court calculated the correct monthly benefit amount after subtracting other income offsets and ordered entry of judgment for the plaintiff.

labor & employmenthealthcare