This case involved California employees of Penske Logistics who worked as appliance delivery drivers and installers, alleging violations of state meal and rest break laws along with related wage and unfair business practices claims. Penske moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the California Labor Code provisions on meal and rest breaks were preempted by the federal FAAA Act. The court granted the motion, holding that the state laws relate to motor carriers' prices, routes, and services because they dictate specific timing and duration requirements that affect scheduling and operations, and that the safety exception to preemption did not apply. The court also granted judicial notice of certain agency materials and denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike as moot.
The case concerns a failed project to develop an outpatient surgery center and medical office building, where plaintiffs Hammes and HC alleged breaches of a letter of intent, ground lease, and space lease by defendant Tri-City Healthcare District and two of its executives, along with related claims for fraud, tortious interference, and promissory estoppel. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It determined that certain lease contingencies were waivable by HC, allowing some breach claims to proceed, but found no triable issues supporting fraud or tortious interference claims and noted that the space lease did not create direct obligations for Tri-City absent a default by the tenant. The decision relied on contract interpretation of contingency provisions and the absence of evidence showing misrepresentations or required relationships for the tort claims.
business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability
In this case, consumers who purchased specific models of Sony televisions filed a putative class action alleging that the TVs had an inherent safety defect causing overheating, melting of components, screen discoloration, and potential combustion, rendering them unsafe for their intended use. Plaintiffs asserted eight causes of action under California law, including violations of the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Magnuson-Moss Act, as well as claims for strict liability and breach of express and implied warranties, based on Sony's alleged knowledge of the defect and failure to adequately disclose or remedy it. The court granted Sony's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The core reasoning was that the complaint failed to state plausible claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), with particular analysis showing that the one-year warranty time limits were not unconscionable under California law and that other arguments, such as reliance on Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., did not apply to extend liability.
This case is the latest in a long-running dispute between Southern California Stroke Rehabilitation Associates and Nautilus over a 1998-1999 contract for custom medical-grade exercise equipment intended for stroke rehabilitation, including issues with powder coating, warranties, delivery, inspections, and alleged defects. After prior litigation, settlements, and inspections that failed to resolve the matter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on claims including breach of contract and warranty. The court granted the defendant's request for judicial notice, denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion, primarily addressing the timeliness of claims under the four-year statute of limitations in California Commercial Code section 2725 and the scope of the equipment warranty based on evidence and prior court findings.
This Federal Tort Claims Act case arose from a slip-and-fall incident in which a contract nurse employed by a Navy contractor fell on a puddle of saline in an operating room at Naval Medical Center San Diego, breaking her toe and receiving workers' compensation benefits. The plaintiff alleged that the United States, as owner and operator of the facility, negligently failed to maintain the floor in a reasonably safe condition. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the concealed-hazard, retained-control, and peculiar-risk theories, concluding that the saline was not concealed, the plaintiff was expected to be aware of such conditions as part of her work, and the workers' compensation bar applied to the peculiar-risk claim. The court nevertheless directed the defendant to file a renewed summary-judgment motion addressing potential liability under ordinary negligence principles and vacated the pretrial conference pending that filing.
This case stemmed from a former San Diego deputy district attorney's post-retirement dissemination of autopsy photographs from a 1983 child death prosecution that was later overturned, prompting the deceased child's mother to sue the prosecutor and county. The plaintiff asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell against the county, along with a California Civil Code § 52.1 claim and other state-law claims for emotional distress. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the § 1983, Monell, and § 52.1 claims, finding no evidence that copying or sharing the photos violated any constitutional right and no proof of threats, intimidation, or coercion required for the state claim. With the federal claims dismissed, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims and dismissed them without prejudice. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied in full.
