In this case, plaintiffs Leeds, L.P. and Fourth Investment, L.P. filed quiet-title actions seeking to remove federal tax liens from two properties, asserting that the liens arising from Susanne and Don Ballantyne's unpaid tax liabilities for tax years including 1985 and 1986 did not attach because the entities were independent owners rather than nominees or alter egos. The United States maintained that the liens attached at the time of assessment and remained valid. After a trial involving extensive evidence of the Ballantynes' use of over a dozen controlled entities and trusts to hold assets and frustrate IRS collection efforts, the court found that these entities lacked independent business activity, were owned and directed by the Ballantynes or their close associates, and served primarily to shield assets through non-arm's-length transfers without full relinquishment of control or benefit. The court therefore concluded that the properties remained subject to the tax liens as nominees of the Ballantynes.
In Hamby v. Power Toyota Irvine, the plaintiff filed an ex parte application seeking permission to conduct discovery on whether an arbitration clause and class action waiver in a contract were unconscionable, along with a continuance of the hearing on the defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The court granted the application, allowing limited discovery relevant to unconscionability and removing the motion to compel from the calendar for later rescheduling. The reasoning relied on California Civil Code section 1670.5(b) and cases such as Coneff v. AT&T Corp. recognizing a right to discovery on this issue, while noting that the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion bars reliance on the Discover Bank rule but does not eliminate unconscionability as a defense to arbitration. Magistrate Judge Skomal was assigned to determine the scope and schedule of discovery.
This case involves a dispute over a $21 million loan agreement secured by a preferred ship's mortgage on a yacht, where the lender paid only the first installment and the borrowers filed state court claims for usury and breach of contract while the lender pursued federal claims for breach and foreclosure. The defendants moved to stay the federal action under the Colorado River abstention doctrine due to the parallel state proceeding. The court granted the stay, finding the actions substantially similar and balancing factors including the risk of piecemeal litigation, the predominance of state law issues, and the adequacy of the state forum. It determined that abstention promoted wise judicial administration without unduly prejudicing the parties, while noting the state court's ability to resolve the core contract issues expeditiously.
In United States v. Deleon-Torres, the defendant was indicted under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for being a deported alien found in the United States and moved to dismiss the indictment by collaterally attacking his 2007 deportation order. He argued that the immigration judge failed to advise him of possible eligibility for adjustment of status, a § 212(h) waiver, or voluntary departure, rendering the proceedings fundamentally unfair. The district court denied the motion, finding that the defendant could not show prejudice because his multiple prior convictions—including aggravated felonies for drug sales, theft, and domestic violence—made him ineligible for any of the claimed forms of relief. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a defendant must demonstrate a plausible ground for relief to establish prejudice from an immigration judge’s failure to inform, and no such ground existed here. The court therefore concluded that the 2007 removal order was valid and could serve as the basis for the criminal charge.
In United States v. Stacy, the defendant was charged with federal offenses including conspiracy and manufacturing marijuana, possession with intent to distribute, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking after operating a medical marijuana collective in California and selling marijuana to an undercover officer. The defendant sought to present defenses such as entrapment by estoppel and public authority, arguing reliance on California medical marijuana laws, statements by then-candidate Obama, and federal enforcement policies. The court denied the defendant's motion to present these defenses and granted the government's motions in limine to preclude entrapment, advice of counsel, medical marijuana, medical necessity, and public authority defenses. The core reasoning was that entrapment by estoppel requires an affirmative statement from a federal official or authorized agent that the conduct was legal under federal law, and no such assurance was shown; compliance with state law or general policy statements did not suffice to establish reasonable reliance.
The case involves plaintiff James Scott, a federal protective officer and criminal investigator employed by the Federal Protective Service, who experienced multiple work-related injuries and medical conditions including adjustment disorder, sinusitis, and repetitive motion injuries to his arm and shoulder. After submitting workers' compensation claims and medical documentation with work restrictions, his supervisor revoked his authority to carry a firearm and required fitness-for-duty medical examinations, releases for medical records, and other inquiries as conditions for restoring his law enforcement credentials and allowing him to attend training. Scott sued under the Rehabilitation Act, alleging that these actions constituted improper disability-related medical examinations and inquiries. The court granted in part and denied in part both parties' summary judgment motions, finding that some requirements were permissible when job-related and consistent with business necessity while others raised triable issues regarding compliance with statutory limits on such inquiries.
