John A. Houston

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

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.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

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.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

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.

federal powerpropertybusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

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.

civil rights

This case is a civil in rem forfeiture action brought by the United States to seize $1,474,770 in currency allegedly tied to international money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 981. The claimant, facing related criminal charges with an outstanding arrest warrant, filed a claim and answer but remained abroad, sought to appear by phone, and failed to comply with court orders requiring personal appearance. The court granted the government's motion to strike the claim and answer under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine of 28 U.S.C. § 2466, concluding that the claimant had notice of the warrant, evaded jurisdiction by staying out of the country, and was not in custody elsewhere.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

This case is a consolidated shareholder derivative action filed by plaintiffs on behalf of Wireless Facilities, Inc. against officers and directors, asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty in oversight of the company and unlawful insider trading related to stock options. Nonresident defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that quasi in rem jurisdiction based solely on property in the state is invalid without minimum contacts, while specific jurisdiction exists over certain defendants whose board and committee activities in California had a causal connection to the claims but not over others lacking such a connection. The decision applied California's long-arm statute, which extends to the limits of due process, and required plaintiffs to make a prima facie showing of general or specific jurisdiction through minimum contacts satisfying traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved the federal government's civil forfeiture action against a 3.27-acre property in Fallbrook, California, owned by claimant Lawrence Nedeau, who operated an organic farm there. Nedeau had pled guilty in state court to cultivating marijuana after authorities discovered hundreds of marijuana plants growing on the property in greenhouses, and the parties entered a stipulated judgment of forfeiture while preserving Nedeau's challenge to its constitutionality. Nedeau moved for a determination that the forfeiture of the $300,000 property was grossly disproportionate to his offense under the Eighth Amendment and sought to reduce or eliminate it. After an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the motion in full, applying the relevant proportionality factors including the gravity of the offense, the property's role in the crime, and the maximum penalties authorized.

criminal lawproperty

The case involved a high school student, Tyler Chase Harper, who was detained by school officials for wearing a t-shirt displaying Bible verses and messages stating that homosexuality is shameful and that the school had embraced what God condemned. Harper, through his parents, sued the Poway Unified School District, alleging violations of his rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, equal protection, due process, and the Establishment Clause under the U.S. and California Constitutions, along with related state law claims. The court dismissed Harper as a plaintiff because his graduation from high school rendered his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief moot. It denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' motion in part, upholding the school's restriction on the speech. The core reasoning relied on Ninth Circuit precedent in Harper II, which held that schools may restrict student speech that collides with the rights of other students to be free from verbal assaults, as affirmed by the Supreme Court's decision in Morse v. Frederick.

free speechreligious libertycivil rights

The case involved a marketing research company suing the California State University Board of Trustees and an affiliate for copyright infringement, conversion, misappropriation, and unfair business practices, alleging the defendants copied the company's economic impact report on the Holiday Bowl. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the Eleventh Amendment provided sovereign immunity to the Board and the defendant in his official capacity, barring the copyright claim against them, but not against the individual defendant. The court also found that the conversion and misappropriation claims were preempted by the federal Copyright Act and dismissed those without prejudice, while allowing the unfair competition claim and the individual capacity claim to proceed.

federal powerprocedurepropertytorts & liability

The case concerned the Quechan Indian Tribe's claims against the United States for damage to archaeological and cultural sites on the Fort Yuma Reservation caused by pole replacement work on a federal transmission line right-of-way. The opinion detailed the reservation's establishment by executive order, subsequent land cessions and Solicitor opinions resolving title disputes in 1978, and the 1942-1971 approvals of the right-of-way for the Parker Dam Power Project. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment and dismissal by analyzing whether federal agencies owed duties under tort and state cultural resource laws, reviewing site eligibility criteria, and identifying genuine factual disputes regarding compliance and harm.

propertyfederal powertorts & liabilityenvironment

In Dalkilic v. Titan Corp., two Turkish citizens who worked as interpreters for Titan Corporation and SOS International in Turkey and Iraq sued the companies for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, breach of oral contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to secure proper legal entry into Iraq, provide promised compensation and benefits, ensure safety, or deliver equal treatment to American employees, leading to various harms including forced asylum in the U.S. The court ruled on the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings by granting it in part and denying it in part, applying California's borrowing statute to dismiss certain claims based on Pennsylvania law while allowing others to proceed, and specifically granting the motion on the negligence claim only for events in Pennsylvania.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

In Maxwell Technologies, Inc. v. Nesscap, Inc., the plaintiff filed suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,631,074 (relating to capacitor current collector foils with specific coatings) and moved for a preliminary injunction against the defendants. Following an evidentiary hearing, supplemental filings, and claim construction analysis, the U.S. District Court denied the motion as to the '074 Patent. The court determined that the plaintiff had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of infringement, because the accused devices lacked a secondary coating or layer formed on the first primary coating or layer as required by Claim 1, even under an expanded reading of the terms. Because this element was dispositive, the court did not reach the remaining preliminary injunction factors.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

The case involves a pro se prisoner, Travis Ray Thompson, who filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon and related sentencing enhancements under California law. The district court reviewed the magistrate judge's report recommending denial of the petition on four grounds: ineffective assistance of counsel, denial of self-representation, evidentiary restrictions, and jury misconduct. The court overruled the petitioner's objections, adopted the report, and denied the petition, determining that the state court's decisions did not violate clearly established federal law or involve unreasonable factual determinations under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved pro se plaintiff Radu Rasidescu suing Midland Credit Management and its executive over an unpaid credit card debt that Midland sought to collect by filing a claim with the National Arbitration Forum in 2005; the plaintiff alleged fraud, negligence, perjury, and resulting damage to his credit after the arbitrator dismissed the claim with prejudice. After multiple amended complaints and motions, the court considered the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court granted the motion, holding that the account statement submitted during the arbitration proceeding was protected by California's absolute litigation privilege, which applies to communications in quasi-judicial arbitration forums. In a choice-of-law analysis, the court determined California law governed over Wisconsin law because it more strongly protected the state's interest in shielding such arbitration-related statements from subsequent tort claims.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a declaratory judgment action filed by Single Chip Systems Corp. and Neology against Intermec IP Corp. and TransCore concerning the validity of U.S. Patent No. 5,030,807. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on combinations of prior art references, while TransCore moved to strike an expert declaration. The court denied the motion to strike the declaration and granted summary judgment of invalidity as to Claim 1, finding it obvious in view of references including Sterzer, Henoch, and Koelle '88, but denied summary judgment as to Claims 4-6.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case was a class action alleging that Arrow Financial Services violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California's Rosenthal Act by mailing form debt collection letters stating that credit bureaus would be notified of account settlements, when the underlying debts had been charged off more than seven years earlier and therefore could not legally be reported. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment, and denied the defendant's motion to decertify the class. It held that the letters' statements were false, deceptive, or misleading under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e(5) and 1692e(10) because they threatened action that could not legally be taken and could mislead the least sophisticated consumer into believing the debt remained reportable. The court further found the class satisfied Rule 23 requirements and that no basis existed to decertify it.

business & regulatory

This case concerns patent infringement claims involving U.S. Patent No. 5,030,807 for systems that read and write data to remote tags used in tracking and toll applications, with ongoing litigation between TransCore and Neology that began in 2004. The court granted Neology's motion to dismiss TransCore's 2007 complaint without prejudice, holding that the new claims constituted improper claim splitting because they arose from the same transaction or occurrence as the pending 2004 action and should have been brought as compulsory counterclaims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a). It denied as moot Neology's alternative motion to stay and TransCore's motion to consolidate the cases. The core reasoning relied on Ninth Circuit precedent prohibiting duplicative litigation and requiring all related claims to be resolved in a single proceeding.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a plaintiff's federal and state claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and related causes of action against debt collection entities and individuals, arising from an affidavit verifying a debt that was submitted in a prior state court breach-of-contract action that was later dismissed. Defendants Collins Financial Services, Inc. and Larry Vasbinder moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting protection under California's litigation privilege. The court granted the motion and dismissed the claims against these defendants without prejudice. It reasoned that the affidavit qualified as a privileged communication under Civil Code § 47(b) because it was made in a judicial proceeding by authorized participants to advance the litigation's objectives and bore a logical relation to the action, distinguishing it from cases involving non-participants whose conduct was unrelated to the judicial process.

procedurebusiness & regulatory