The case involves consolidated class action complaints against YellowPages.com and AT&T alleging fraudulent marketing and sale of an internet advertising program called YP Clicks! that promised a guaranteed number of clicks. AT&T moved to dismiss the claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). The court granted the motion after applying the Ninth Circuit's test for specific jurisdiction and finding that AT&T had not purposefully availed itself of the forum or established minimum contacts with California sufficient to satisfy due process. The court separately denied the plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery because no pertinent facts were shown to be controverted or in need of further development.
This case arose from the 2004 dissolution of 17th Street Capital Partners, a company in which plaintiffs and defendant Wollrab were shareholders; after Wollrab sued the plaintiffs in Colorado state court over alleged misconduct in the dissolution, the matter was removed to bankruptcy court where most claims were dismissed or settled, and plaintiffs later filed this federal action seeking declaratory relief that Wollrab had no remaining claims plus a malicious prosecution claim after he filed a second state suit. The court denied the motion to dismiss the declaratory relief claim, holding that it had subject matter jurisdiction because federal bankruptcy law preempted state law issues regarding the settled claims, but granted the motion to dismiss the malicious prosecution claim under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim under Colorado law since the prior actions were resolved by settlement or lacked favorable termination. The court declined to stay the declaratory action or abstain from jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, finding the federal interests predominant.
In Marseglia v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, plaintiffs sued Chase Bank alleging violations of California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act after the bank continued contacting them about a disputed debt despite being notified they were represented by counsel and had directed communications to stop; they also brought claims for libel, invasion of privacy, and tort-in-se. The court denied the bank's motion to dismiss the entire complaint for lack of specificity but granted dismissal of the invasion of privacy claim without prejudice, the tort-in-se claim with prejudice, and the libel claim without prejudice. It also granted the motion to strike the request for statutory damages per violation, ruling that damages under the Rosenthal Act are capped at $1,000 per plaintiff rather than per violation, consistent with interpretations of the analogous federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The decisions rested on federal pleading standards under Rule 12(b)(6), the legal sufficiency of the tort claims, and statutory construction of damage limits.
The case involved the City of Oceanside's efforts to acquire land near its airport to comply with FAA safety standards using federal grant funds, followed by a 1999 settlement agreement with the prior landowner (predecessor to AELD) that included a buy-back option if the land was not improved for airport purposes within five years. After AELD sought to exercise the option in 2008, the FAA refused to release the parcel as it remained needed for aeronautical use, leading the City to condition any transfer on FAA approval; this prompted the City's lawsuit seeking declaratory relief that the buy-back provision was preempted by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and Federal Aviation Act, along with AELD's counterclaims for breach of contract and related issues. The court granted the City's and Federal Defendants' motions for summary judgment in part, ruling the buy-back provision void due to direct conflict with federal law requiring FAA approval for disposal of grant-funded property and denying AELD's motion. It reasoned that the provision frustrated federal regulatory requirements and that related state-law claims depended on the invalid clause, while leaving one counterclaim unresolved.
The case involved a class action lawsuit by plaintiff Yoshi Weston against FedEx Office and Print Services, Inc., alleging that the company's use of out-of-state bank paychecks violated California Labor Code sections 212(a) and 2698, as well as Business and Professions Code section 17200, because employees faced fees or holds when cashing them in California. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that FedEx's paychecks complied with the statutory requirements, interpreting Labor Code § 212 to permit checks drawn on out-of-state banks without in-state addresses as long as they could be negotiated at no cost in the state, and found no genuine issues of material fact regarding compliance.
The case involves a plaintiff suing Accredited Home Lenders on behalf of African American homeowners, claiming that the company's discretionary pricing policy for mortgage loans disproportionately burdens African Americans in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act. The defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds, including statute of limitations, lack of disparate impact claims under the statutes, and other deficiencies. The court denied the motion, finding that the complaint adequately alleged facts supporting the claims, including a continuing violation or discovery rule for timeliness, the permissibility of disparate impact claims, an agency relationship with brokers, and sufficient allegations against the holding company.
