The case involved plaintiffs Outdoor Media Group and Chance Outdoor, who sought permits to erect billboards and sued the City of Beaumont under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the city's denial of their conditional use permit application under the old sign ordinance violated their First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights. After the city repealed the old ordinance and enacted a new one banning new billboards, the district court dismissed the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief as moot and rejected the damages claim for lack of a vested property right. On remand and following entry of judgment, the court addressed plaintiffs' request for additional time to appeal. The court granted the extension, finding excusable neglect under the Pioneer factors after weighing the reasons for delay, absence of prejudice, lack of bad faith, and other circumstances.
The case involved plaintiffs Lola Osborne, the grandmother, and Khila Ward, the aunt, of minor child Cynthia Fulton, who sued Riverside County officials, social workers, and the child's court-appointed attorney under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged that the defendants unlawfully removed Cynthia from their custody without a warrant or hearing, presented false evidence in state dependency proceedings, and violated their Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment liberty interests, ultimately seeking damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief after Cynthia was adopted by others. The court dismissed sua sponte the Fourth Amendment portion of the § 1983 claim with prejudice and the claim for declaratory and injunctive relief with prejudice for lack of standing, while dismissing the Fourteenth Amendment portion without prejudice. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs, as non-parents, lacked a constitutionally protected liberty interest in maintaining custody of the child, and they could not demonstrate a likelihood of future injury to support equitable relief.
This case arose from a real estate purchase dispute in which the plaintiff sued the defendants in state court for specific performance and damages after one defendant sent a letter to a city council; the defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike, the case was removed to federal court and referred to the bankruptcy court following the plaintiff's Chapter 11 filing, and the bankruptcy judge recommended granting the motion. The district court accepted the recommendation and granted the motion after the plaintiff missed the deadline to file objections to the proposed findings. The plaintiff then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from the order based on excusable neglect due to counsel's schedule and a calendaring error. The court denied the motion, holding that Bankruptcy Rule 9033 sets strict, non-extendable deadlines for objections that Rule 60(b) cannot circumvent.
The case involved Aventis's patent infringement suit against Amphastar and Teva over the '618 patent covering low molecular weight heparins used in the blood thinner Lovenox. After the court granted summary judgment finding the '618 patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, Aventis obtained a reissue patent ('743) from the PTO and moved to substitute it for the surrendered original patent in the action. The court granted the substitution, allowed filing of a second amended complaint, and entered final judgment as to both patents under Rule 54(b). The core reasoning was that 35 U.S.C. § 252 treats a reissue patent as a continuation of the original where claims are substantially identical, curing the technical problem of the court having ruled on a nonexistent patent while causing minimal prejudice to defendants pending appeal.
The case involved plaintiffs Outdoor Media Group and Chance Outdoor, who applied for a conditional use permit to erect billboards in the City of Beaumont and had their application denied by city officials under the existing sign ordinance; they then sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief plus damages on grounds that the ordinance was vague and applied arbitrarily. While the suit was pending, the city enacted a new ordinance that completely prohibited new billboards. The court granted the city's motion to dismiss, holding that the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot because the challenged ordinance had been repealed and replaced. It further held that the damages claim was moot because, under California law, no property rights vested in the plaintiffs since no permit had been issued or relied upon.
This case is a patent infringement suit in which Aventis sued Amphastar and Teva for allegedly infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,389,618 covering certain low-molecular-weight heparins used in the blood thinner Lovenox. Amphastar moved for summary judgment on its defense and counterclaim that the patent is unenforceable because of inequitable conduct during prosecution, including material misrepresentations and omissions about half-life data and comparisons to the prior-art Mardiguian European patent. The court granted the motion after finding clear and convincing evidence of materiality and intent to deceive the PTO, and it therefore denied as moot Amphastar's alternative summary-judgment motions on indefiniteness and anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
