Robert J. Timlin

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 After the city repealed the old ordinance and enacted a new one banning new billboards, the district court dismissed the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief as moot and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.

free speechcivil rightsprocedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

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.

procedurepropertyfree speech

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

free speechcivil rightsbusiness & regulatoryproperty

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Peter Roach, a U.S. citizen adopted from South Korea, who alleged that the Lee family defendants and related companies defrauded him of his inheritance from his biological father, Won Man Lee, by falsifying records, denying his parentage, facilitating his adoption, and paying his adoptive parents to relinquish his rights. The plaintiff asserted claims including intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent transfer under California law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional spoliation of evidence, and negligence. The court granted the moving defendants' motion to dismiss the second claim for fraudulent transfer and the fourth claim for intentional spoliation of evidence with prejudice. It reasoned that the fraudulent transfer claim was time-barred by the seven-year statute of limitations under the California Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, which could not be tolled, and that California does not recognize a tort for intentional spoliation of evidence where the plaintiff learns of the spoliation only after a decision on the merits of any underlying action.

family lawpropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a Latin cross displayed on federal land in the Mojave National Preserve, which a prior court ruling had found violated the Establishment Clause, leading to a permanent injunction barring its display on government property. Congress then enacted Section 8121 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, directing the Secretary of the Interior to transfer the one-acre parcel containing the cross to a private veterans group in exchange for other land. Plaintiff sought to enforce the injunction, arguing the transfer was a sham to circumvent the ruling. The court granted the motion to enforce, denied the alternative request to modify as moot, and permanently enjoined the land transfer, reasoning that unusual circumstances—including the cross's visibility from public roads and the absence of distinguishing features—showed the transfer was an evasion rather than a genuine cure for the constitutional violation.

religious libertyfederal power

Rosen Entertainment Systems sued Icon Enterprises for patent infringement, alleging that Icon's automotive video display units infringed two of Rosen's patents on overhead flip-down displays. Rosen moved for a preliminary injunction to stop Icon from selling the allegedly infringing models. The court granted the injunction as to one patent after finding Rosen likely to succeed on validity and infringement, that irreparable harm and the balance of hardships favored Rosen, and no overriding public interest against enforcement; it denied the injunction as to the second patent because Rosen failed to directly compare the patent claims to Icon's product. The ruling rested on the four-factor test for preliminary injunctive relief in patent cases under 35 U.S.C. § 283 and Federal Circuit precedent, with a $500,000 bond required.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from a commercial dispute in which Comerica Bank and affiliated lenders sued Whitehall Specialties, Inc. and its officers in California state court for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and related claims stemming from unpaid invoices and an alleged scheme to evade loan caps under a credit agreement with A & J Cheese. After defendants removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds, plaintiffs moved to remand based on a forum selection clause in the invoices designating the Superior Court of San Bernardino County as the exclusive venue. The court granted remand, finding the clause valid and enforceable against all defendants because they were closely related to the contractual relationship and no grounds existed to invalidate it, such as fraud or undue inconvenience; it denied the motion to transfer venue as moot and returned the case to state court.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

Rosen Entertainment Systems sued Eiger Vision for patent infringement, alleging that Eiger's automotive overhead video display units violated five of Rosen's U.S. patents on such devices. Rosen applied for a preliminary injunction to halt Eiger's manufacture, import, sale, and distribution of the accused products. The court granted the injunction as to one patent (the '055 patent), enjoining Eiger from further activity involving specific models, after determining a likelihood of success on the merits of infringement and applying the standard for preliminary relief in patent cases; it conditioned the order on Rosen posting a $100,000 bond and did not grant relief on the remaining patents. The decision rested on claim construction, comparison of the accused products to the patent claims, and the presumption of irreparable harm upon a showing of likely success.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved plaintiff La France Hamilton's motion for summary adjudication on his claim that California Penal Code section 148.6, which requires law enforcement agencies to provide a specific warning on citizen complaint forms about the misdemeanor penalty for knowingly filing false allegations against peace officers, is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The court granted the motion, finding the statute unconstitutional as it had previously ruled in denying a motion to dismiss. The decision rested on the statute's content-based restriction on speech, drawing from precedents like R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul and Virginia v. Black, and determined that the warning and penalty provisions impermissibly chilled protected complaints about police misconduct without sufficient justification under the facts presented.

free speechcriminal lawcivil rights

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Alfa Leisure against competitor King of the Road regarding U.S. Patent No. RE 37,351, which covers features of a fifth-wheel trailer such as elevated sewage tanks and drainage controls located in a storage compartment. King of the Road asserted an affirmative defense and counterclaim alleging that the patent was obtained through inequitable conduct because the inventor failed to disclose certain prior art to the Patent and Trademark Office. The court denied King of the Road's motion for summary judgment on the inequitable conduct issue, finding no significant probative evidence of intent to deceive despite the inventor's knowledge of the omitted information. It granted Alfa's request for summary judgment on the same issue, concluding that materiality and knowledge alone were insufficient to establish the required intent under Federal Circuit precedent.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved City of Ontario police department employees suing Arch Wireless for disclosing the contents of their alphanumeric pager text messages to city officials without a warrant, subpoena, or consent. Plaintiffs asserted claims against Arch Wireless under the federal Stored Communications Act for improper divulgence of stored electronic communications, a California penal code provision, and invasion of privacy under the state constitution. The court denied the motion to dismiss the SCA and privacy claims, holding that the messages qualified as electronic storage and that the complaint sufficiently alleged a privacy violation for both sent and received texts, but granted dismissal with prejudice of the state penal code claim. The decision rested on the plain language of the SCA prohibiting unauthorized disclosure by service providers and on the adequacy of the factual allegations supporting the constitutional privacy tort.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In United States v. Smith, the court addressed a federal prisoner's challenge to the Bureau of Prisons' calculation of pre-sentence custody credit on his 78-month sentence for a federal offense, which had been ordered to run concurrently with an unrelated state sentence. Smith argued that the BOP failed to credit over 18 months he spent in state custody from December 16, 1999, to June 25, 2001, despite a federal detainer stemming from his federal case. The court construed the § 2255 motion as a § 2241 habeas petition and granted it, directing the BOP to recalculate the sentence to include that period. The reasoning relied on 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b), which mandates credit for any time in official detention prior to sentencing that has not been credited against another sentence, including time under federal detainer even without physical federal custody.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Laura Ann Levernier appealing a bankruptcy court decision that her consolidated student loan from Educational Credit Management Corporation was not dischargeable in her Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling, holding that the consolidation loan qualified as an educational loan under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) and thus could not be discharged without a showing of undue hardship. The court reasoned that consolidation loans issued under the Higher Education Act retain an educational purpose, rejecting the argument that refinancing altered their character. Additionally, Levernier failed to demonstrate undue hardship under the Brunner test because her income allowed for a minimal standard of living while making loan payments.

federal powerprocedure

This case involves a plaintiff alleging that the City of Riverside violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and California Civil Code Section 54.3 by failing to install sufficient wheelchair-accessible curb ramps on city property. The City moved for partial judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Section 54.3 does not impose liability on public entities, that intentional conduct was not alleged, and that any liability would be limited to a single statutory damages award for a single course of conduct. The court construed the motions under Rule 12(c) and denied them, holding that Section 54.3 applies to public entities because it is a statute imposing liability in general terms, that the California Tort Claims Act's general immunity provision does not shield public entities from such statutory claims, and that related immunity and damages issues did not warrant dismissal at this stage.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case arose from a state-court lawsuit by the Redevelopment Agency of San Bernardino against developers and borrower defendants alleging fraud, RICO violations, and related claims connected to a HUD-funded housing rehabilitation and resale program involving MAP loans. Several borrower defendants responded with a federal counterclaim and cross-claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting due-process and equal-protection violations against the Agency and the City. After previously remanding the supplemental state-law claims, the district court remanded the § 1983 claims to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c) on the ground that those state claims predominated over the federal claims, and it denied the motion to dismiss the counterclaim and cross-claim as moot because the claims were no longer before the federal court.

civil rightsprocedurefederal power

The case involved a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by Burris challenging his 1998 commitment as a Sexually Violent Predator under California law following a jury trial. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the two-year commitment order had expired in 2000, prior to the filing of the petition in 2003. The reasoning centered on the requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 that a habeas petitioner must be in custody under the order being challenged at the time of filing, and prior state court proceedings had not kept the original order active.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns a petition by the NLRB Regional Director for a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act against employer Dura Art Stone and union AIWU Local 61. The petition alleged that the parties violated the Act by negotiating and executing a new three-year collective bargaining agreement in October 2002 after receiving an employee disaffection petition signed by a majority of the bargaining unit, which indicated the union had lost majority support. The court granted the injunction after finding a strong likelihood of success on the merits. It reasoned that the disaffection petition constituted objective evidence of lost majority status that could not be ignored simply because it was received during the insulated period before the prior contract expired, as that would improperly bind employees to an unwanted representative in violation of their Section 7 rights.

labor & employment