John A. Mendez

This case involves a motion by defendant Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) to reconsider a magistrate judge's protective order in ongoing litigation with the United States. The order addressed SPI counsel's attendance at a public Forest Service tour, where an attorney communicated with agency employees about matters in the case without disclosing his role or obtaining consent from government counsel, in alleged violation of California's no-contact ethical rule (Rule 2-100). The district court denied reconsideration, holding that the magistrate judge's findings were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court reasoned that the public officer exception to the no-contact rule did not apply, as the employees lacked policymaking authority and the contacts were aimed at gathering litigation evidence rather than exercising First Amendment petition rights. The order required SPI to disclose all such contacts and related materials.

procedure

In Fontana v. Alpine County, plaintiffs David and Lisa Fontana sued Alpine County officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of Mr. Fontana's Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights stemming from a 2006 criminal investigation and trial on charges of inappropriate touching of minors, which ended in acquittal; the complaint claimed issues including lack of investigation training, ignored recantations, fabricated or destroyed evidence, warrantless arrest at gunpoint, false statements, perjury, and failure to supervise, with Mrs. Fontana seeking loss of consortium damages. Defendants moved to dismiss based on absolute and qualified immunity and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing with prejudice claims against certain defendants in their official capacities, the first cause of action, and punitive damages against the county, while dismissing without prejudice the Sixth Amendment claims, state law claims, and Mrs. Fontana's claim, and allowing leave to amend within twenty days; reasoning centered on immunity doctrines protecting officials from suit, plaintiffs' failure to plead plausible claims or separate causes of action with accrual details, and legal bars to punitive damages against municipalities.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case concerned claims by the estate and family of inmate Jessie P. Contreras, who died by suicide in Glenn County Jail after indicating he was suicidal but receiving no mental health evaluation, safety cell placement, or suicide watch monitoring. Plaintiffs asserted federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state-law survival and wrongful death claims against the county, sheriff's department, and sheriff. The court dismissed the fourth claim for municipal and supervisory liability without prejudice, dismissed Leonor Contreras in her individual capacity from the survival claims with prejudice, struck all allegations seeking damages for the decedent's pre-death pain and suffering with prejudice under California survival statutes and Eastern District precedent, and granted leave to add the decedent's minor daughter as a plaintiff.

civil rightsprocedure

This case concerns survivor claims brought by the family of Jessie P. Contreras, an inmate who died by suicide in Glenn County Jail after allegedly receiving no mental health care or monitoring despite indicating he was suicidal. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss Leonor Contreras's individual-capacity survivor claims for lack of standing under California survival statutes, while permitting amendment to add the decedent's minor daughter as a plaintiff and to clarify the estate's representative capacity. It also granted the motion to strike allegations seeking damages for the decedent's pre-death pain and suffering, holding such recovery unavailable in §1983 survival actions because California law already supplies compensatory damages to survivors. Official-capacity claims against the individual defendants were dismissed as redundant.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involves the United States seeking recovery of response costs incurred by the EPA for addressing releases of hazardous substances at the Iron Mountain Mines Superfund Site under CERCLA Section 107(a). The defendants had previously been found jointly and severally liable as owners and operators of the facility. On the motion for partial summary judgment, the court awarded the government $26,968,134.84 in response costs incurred through February 29, 1996, plus $30,172,534.69 in prejudgment interest through fiscal year 2009, with additional interest to accrue until paid. The court reasoned that the plaintiff established a prima facie case for recovery under the strict liability provisions of CERCLA, the response actions were consistent with the National Contingency Plan, and the defendants failed to raise any genuine issue of material fact regarding inconsistency with the NCP.

environmentfederal power

This case involved the City of Vallejo's Chapter 9 bankruptcy filing and its motion to reject collective bargaining agreements with unions including the IBEW under Bankruptcy Code Section 365(a). The Bankruptcy Court ruled that federal bankruptcy law, as interpreted in NLRB v. Bildisco, governed the rejection of public sector contracts and found that the City met the applicable legal standard after unsuccessful mediation. On appeal, the District Court reviewed the legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error, affirmed that Section 365 applied, that the Bildisco requirements were satisfied including reasonable negotiation efforts and unlikelihood of agreement, and upheld the rejection order. The court noted that all parties faced cuts due to insolvency and that the findings were not clearly erroneous.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

PMA Capital Insurance Company sued American Safety Indemnity Company (ASIC) for equitable contribution to recover over $1 million in defense costs and settlement payments from a resolved construction defect case involving their mutual insured, a plumbing subcontractor. The court granted ASIC's motion for summary judgment and denied PMA's motion. The court reasoned that under the ASIC policies, the term "occurrence" referred to the insured's negligent work, which was completed before the policies took effect, and that both the occurrence and resulting property damage must occur during the policy period for coverage to apply; because PMA failed to show a potential for coverage, ASIC had no duty to defend and thus owed no contribution.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case arose after school officials reported suspected child abuse based on bruises on one of two minor grandchildren living with their grandparents and legal guardians, prompting a social worker and sheriff's deputy to investigate and remove the children from the home without a warrant for protective custody. The grandparents sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violations of the children's Fourth Amendment rights against warrantless seizure and Fourteenth Amendment rights to familial association, along with related state tort claims including false arrest and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on the federal constitutional claims, finding the removal and detention lawful in light of the emergency response, interviews, and subsequent juvenile court detention hearing that upheld the placement on a prima facie basis. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and did not address the Monell claim against the county.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

This case concerns manufacturers and users of electronic bingo machines in California charitable bingo parlors who challenged state cease-and-desist orders labeling the machines as illegal gaming devices and threatening enforcement actions. Plaintiffs and intervenors brought claims for declaratory relief, violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding subject matter jurisdiction over the ADA claims. It reasoned that Ninth Circuit precedent establishes Congress validly abrogated state Eleventh Amendment immunity in enacting Title II of the ADA, and that Ex Parte Young permits suits for prospective injunctive relief against state officials. The court declined to revisit other arguments already addressed at the preliminary injunction stage or now on appeal.

civil rightsprocedure

Nelson Anthoine sued his former employer NCCC and two supervisors for civil rights violations under the First Amendment and related state law claims after his termination as a program analyst in May 2005. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court relied on undisputed facts showing Anthoine's long history of performance and insubordination issues, including warnings about failing to follow directions, and found that his meeting with the board chairman to raise concerns about data reporting and other matters did not establish a viable retaliation claim or overcome the legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for his discharge.

civil rightsfree speechlabor & employment

In Hughes v. Arnold, debtor Melanie Hughes appealed a bankruptcy court's partial summary judgment ruling that a state court award of over $300,000 in attorney's fees and costs, arising from her unsuccessful sexual harassment lawsuit against the creditors, was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The district court affirmed, holding that the debt qualified as arising from "willful and malicious injury" because the state court had found the underlying action constituted malicious prosecution pursued with intent to injure. The court applied issue preclusion to the state court's factual determinations, which established that Hughes initiated and prosecuted the action without probable cause and for an improper purpose. It rejected arguments that the award was dischargeable absent an intentional tort or that the bankruptcy court improperly relied on state findings, confirming the amount owed and lifting the automatic stay.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved Sandra Tinker challenging the denial of her long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed plan provided by her employer and insured by Continental Casualty Company. The court granted Tinker's motion for judgment and denied the defendants' motion, awarding her the benefits. The decision was based on a de novo review of the administrative record, finding that Tinker continued to meet the plan's definition of disability due to her vertigo and depression, and that the insurer's termination was not supported by the medical evidence, including updates from her physician indicating worsening symptoms.

labor & employmenthealthcare

In Calkins v. Playboy Enterprises International, Inc., plaintiff Carla Calkins sued Playboy for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act after the magazine reproduced a high school senior portrait photograph taken by her studio without permission in its 50th anniversary edition. The court granted Playboy's motion for summary judgment, holding that the use constituted fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107. The decision rested on analysis of the four fair use factors: the purpose was biographical and non-commercial in nature, the work was factual and published, only a small cropped portion was used, and there was no evidence of market harm or lost sales to the plaintiff, with widespread similar use potentially increasing demand for reprints instead.

propertyprocedure