Charles R. Breyer

In Shahani v. United Commercial Bank, appellant Ray Shahani entered into a construction loan agreement with the bank to develop property, but after disputes involving contractor abandonment and mechanic's liens, the bank declared default and foreclosed on the property. Shahani sued for wrongful foreclosure and breach of the loan agreement, but the bankruptcy court entered judgment for the bank, which this court affirms. The court reasoned that Shahani breached the agreement first by failing to respond to the bank's requests and resolve lien issues, excusing the bank's further disbursements and justifying the foreclosure, and found no basis for estoppel claims due to lack of intent or misrepresentation by the bank.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In Schlegel v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., homeowners who had obtained a loan modification after defaulting on their mortgage sued the bank under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, alleging that the bank repeatedly sent erroneous notices of default and threatened foreclosure despite the modification agreement being in place. The court granted the bank's motion to dismiss both claims with prejudice. It held that the FDCPA claims failed because the bank qualified as a creditor rather than a debt collector under the statute and its actions were more akin to servicing than debt collection. The ECOA claims failed because the erroneous notices did not constitute an adverse action revoking the modification terms, and no adverse action notice was required for communications relating to an account already in default.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves lawsuits arising from the 2009 crash of Air France Flight 447, with plaintiffs seeking to hold American component manufacturers liable in U.S. courts. The court previously dismissed related actions on forum non conveniens grounds, finding France to be an adequate alternative forum, and here it addressed new filings that omitted French defendants in an effort to render France unavailable. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs could not manufacture jurisdictional uncertainty by strategically dropping French parties they had previously implicated and then rely on that uncertainty to avoid dismissal. It also denied the motion for reconsideration, as the new filings did not alter the basis for the original ruling. The decision rested on precedents that prevent parties from defeating an alternative forum through their own purposeful conduct and on the balance of private and public interest factors favoring trial abroad.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves a dispute between two companies selling virtual breedable animals in the online world Second Life, where Ozimals sent a DMCA takedown notice to the platform operator alleging copyright infringement by Amaretto's virtual horses, prompting Amaretto to seek injunctive relief and file claims including DMCA misrepresentation, tortious interference, unfair competition, and copyright misuse. The court granted Ozimals's motion to dismiss in part by dismissing the DMCA section 512(f) claim with prejudice and the tortious interference claim without prejudice, while denying dismissal of the unfair competition and copyright misuse claims and maintaining the preliminary injunction. The reasoning for dismissal of the tortious interference claim centered on insufficient particularity in pleading fraud-based allegations, whereas the copyright misuse claim was deemed viable as an affirmative claim in this context.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case involved a former Merrill Lynch financial advisor who left to join a competitor and was denied unvested long-term incentive benefits, leading him to pursue arbitration claims for breach of contract and interference with his right to compete under California Civil Code section 52.1. The arbitrator awarded the plaintiff plan payments plus emotional distress damages, exemplary damages, and attorneys' fees, after which the defendant moved to vacate the award on grounds that the arbitrator improperly used two undisclosed research attorneys. The court denied the motion to vacate and granted the motion to confirm and correct the award. It reasoned that while disclosure of research assistance would have been best practice, the defendant failed to show misconduct or breach of contract by the arbitrator, had prior notice via an invoice, and waived any objection by not raising the issue during the arbitration proceedings. Under both California and federal arbitration law, awards may be vacated only on limited grounds such as arbitrator misconduct causing prejudice.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a class action challenging San Francisco's policies of conducting strip searches on arrestees booked into county jails, including searches without individualized suspicion or before classification for housing. After the Ninth Circuit's decision in Bull v. San Francisco upheld the constitutionality of certain classification-based searches and eliminated related claims, plaintiffs sought to amend their complaint to add new subclasses and a new named plaintiff, Brian Vowell, as a representative for claims involving searches before classification and under California Penal Code § 4030. The court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to alter the judgment, permitting Vowell to serve as representative only for the subclass of arrestees searched without classification (subclass 2) due to the change in law, but denying addition for the § 4030 subclass (subclass 3) because of undue prejudice from the late stage of proceedings. The court also granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all damage claims against the City under § 4030, finding the claims were not properly preserved or noticed in prior complaints. Core reasoning centered on the impact of the Ninth Circuit ruling, the timing of proposed amendments after years of litigation, and the lack of prior notice to defendants regarding specific § 4030 issues like phone access for bail.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves consolidated lawsuits filed in the US by representatives of passengers and crew killed in the 2009 Air France crash over the Atlantic, seeking compensation from the airline and manufacturing defendants. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all actions on forum non conveniens grounds, finding that France is the more appropriate forum despite the presence of some US plaintiffs. The core reasoning focused on private interest factors such as access to evidence held by French authorities and the ability to compel witnesses, along with public interest factors including France's strong connection to the French defendants and the crash investigation; these outweighed the slight inconvenience to the two American decedents' representatives, while the Montreal Convention's jurisdictional rules also supported dismissal of foreign plaintiffs' claims against Air France.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Robert Dalton Rush, a California state prisoner serving a seventeen-years-to-life sentence for second-degree murder, challenging the Board of Prison Hearings' 2007 denial of parole. The district court granted the petition, ordering the respondent to either set a parole date or present new evidence of current dangerousness. The court's reasoning centered on the lack of any reliable evidence indicating that Rush posed an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released, noting favorable psychological evaluations, his exemplary prison conduct, and other suitability factors, which made the state courts' upholding of the denial an unreasonable application of California's "some evidence" standard as interpreted in Hayward v. Marshall.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves California prisoners with developmental disabilities who sued over discrimination and lack of accommodations in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendants moved under the Prison Litigation Reform Act to terminate a 2001 settlement agreement and Clark Remedial Plan that required specific policies and monitoring to protect the class. Plaintiffs opposed and sought additional relief. The court denied termination and granted further relief in part, reasoning that evidence including expert reports and testimony established ongoing violations through inadequate protections, abuse, exploitation, and failure to provide required services and accommodations.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether a disability insurer abused its discretion by offsetting a settlement payment the plaintiff received from his former employer against his long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed policy. The court determined that the insurer did not abuse its discretion in classifying the settlement as a deductible source of income that reduced benefits, but it did abuse its discretion by not first subtracting the plaintiff's attorneys' fees from the settlement amount before applying the offset. The court therefore granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff and remanded the matter to the claims administrator for recalculation of the offset. The court also granted summary judgment to the insurer on its right to request the plaintiff's tax returns, finding that the plaintiff had waived any privilege by agreeing to provide necessary financial records to substantiate his income.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a habeas corpus petition filed by a California state prisoner challenging the Board of Parole Hearings' 2007 denial of parole following his 1990 conviction for attempted murder. The court granted the petition, finding that the denial violated due process because the board's decision lacked evidentiary support. The board relied primarily on the circumstances of the commitment offense, which it deemed especially cruel, along with the district attorney's opposition and perceived gaps in the petitioner's insight. However, the court determined that after seventeen years, the prisoner's lack of violent history, exemplary disciplinary record, strong family support, realistic parole plans, and favorable psychological evaluations meant the old offense alone did not constitute some evidence of current danger to public safety, rendering the state court's upholding of the denial objectively unreasonable.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Vicky Kraus, an African-American female employee at the Presidio Trust, who alleged employment discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, and disability, along with retaliation and a hostile work environment stemming from comments, management decisions, and other incidents over several years. After prior rulings on one administrative complaint were affirmed on appeal, the Ninth Circuit remanded the second complaint for further consideration of whether Kraus had exhausted administrative remedies by showing intent to initiate the EEO process when complaining to an appropriate officer. On remand, the district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the remaining claims failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation and that the alleged conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment under Ninth Circuit standards. The court found no genuine issues of material fact supporting the claims after reviewing declarations and evidence, rendering the exhaustion question moot.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court ruling in which the trustee sought to recover the value of a debtor's partnership interest in a law firm under California Corporations Code § 16701 after the debtor filed for bankruptcy and became dissociated from the firm. The bankruptcy court valued the debtor's 38.59% share at $546,440.18 based on expert testimony regarding the firm's going-concern value and awarded the trustee $25,000 in attorneys' fees. On appeal, the district court affirmed the valuation, finding it supported by the evidence and not clearly erroneous, but reversed the fee award because the request was not properly pled as a claim in the complaint or other enumerated documents as required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7008(b), depriving the debtor of adequate notice. The court applied a clearly erroneous standard to factual findings and de novo review to legal conclusions.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a bankruptcy appeal in which mortgage lenders sought relief from the automatic stay after the debtors' trustees sent notices of rescission under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), alleging failures to provide required loan documents. The bankruptcy court denied the motions, concluding that the rescissions raised serious doubts about the enforceability of the security interests because TILA is self-executing and the lenders had not challenged the notices within the statutory 20-day period. On appeal, the district court affirmed, holding that whether a loan has been rescinded is a threshold issue affecting the lenders' rights altogether, not merely a substantive defense that must await an adversary proceeding after the stay is lifted. The court reasoned that the bankruptcy judge acted within his discretion by declining to lift the stay and instead inviting the lenders to initiate adversary proceedings to adjudicate the TILA claims.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves allegations by the United States that Scios Inc. and Johnson & Johnson violated the False Claims Act by inducing doctors to prescribe the drug Natrecor for off-label outpatient uses that were not medically accepted, leading to the submission of false reimbursement claims to Medicare and other federal health programs. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b), arguing that the claims were not false, that the complaint lacked particularity in detailing the claims and causal links, and that it improperly challenged doctors' judgments. The court denied the motion, holding that the complaint adequately alleged a viable FCA cause of action under a relatively novel theory, including sufficient details about the marketing scheme and its connection to the claims, though the arguments might be revisited at later stages. The decision emphasized that the allegations centered on inducement through misrepresentations rather than second-guessing medical decisions.

healthcarecriminal law

In Haskell v. Brown, plaintiffs sought to enjoin enforcement of California Penal Code § 296(a)(2)(C), which requires mandatory DNA sampling via buccal swab from all felony arrestees for upload into the state's CODIS database for identification purposes. The district court denied the motion for preliminary injunction, holding that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims or that the equities tipped in their favor. The court applied a balancing test under the Fourth Amendment, concluding that the government's interests in arrestee identification and crime-solving outweighed arrestees' privacy expectations, given the limited use of non-coding DNA markers, strict statutory restrictions on disclosure, and precedents permitting DNA collection from convicted offenders.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case concerned a defendant convicted of multiple counts of tax fraud who, prior to sentencing, underwent psychiatric evaluations that found him incompetent due to a psychotic disorder preventing him from understanding the proceedings or assisting counsel. The central legal issue was whether competency determinations for such a post-conviction, pre-sentencing defendant are governed by 18 U.S.C. § 4241 or exclusively by § 4244. The court ruled that § 4241 applies at this stage and incorporates the Dusky standard requiring a rational understanding of the proceedings and ability to assist in defense. Because the defendant was found incompetent and unlikely to regain capacity, the court ordered further evaluation under § 4246 rather than proceeding under § 4244.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Walter Hoye, a pro-life demonstrator, suing the City of Oakland over Ordinance No. 12860, which established an eight-foot buffer zone around individuals seeking access to reproductive healthcare clinics to prevent harassment or interference. Hoye challenged the ordinance as facially unconstitutional, unconstitutional as applied, unconstitutionally vague, and violative of the Equal Protection Clause. The court granted the City's motion for summary judgment and denied Hoye's, finding the ordinance content-neutral and narrowly tailored to advance the City's significant interests in ensuring safe access to clinics and protecting patient privacy and well-being. The decision reasoned that the buffer zone left ample alternative channels for communication and did not discriminate based on viewpoint, consistent with precedents like Hill v. Colorado.

free speechabortioncivil rightshealthcare

In this ERISA case, plaintiff J. Stephen Wiley sued his former employer Cendant's short-term disability plan after his claim for benefits was denied by insurer Aetna. The court addressed the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the applicable standard of review for the denial. The court granted the motion, ruling that de novo review applies because the plan documents—including the certificate, summary plan description, and insurance contract—do not unambiguously confer discretionary authority on any single administrator or fiduciary. The opinion reasoned that conflicting provisions in the documents create ambiguity, which must be resolved in favor of the employee, and that a disclaimer in the SPD purporting to give precedence to other documents does not cure the lack of a clear grant of discretion.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves ancillary proceedings following the forfeiture of assets belonging to Pavel Lazarenko, convicted of money laundering, where Universal Trading & Investment Co. (UTICo) asserted claims to the funds. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss UTICo's claims under 21 U.S.C. § 853(n)(6)(A), finding no prior vested interest in the assets, and granted summary judgment on claims under § 853(n)(6)(B), determining that UTICo was not a bona fide purchaser for value without knowledge of the forfeiture. The court reasoned that the forfeiture related back to the start of the criminal activity, binding the proceedings, and that UTICo's assignment from the Ukrainian government did not constitute a purchase of the specific assets or demonstrate lack of notice. UTICo's cross-motions were denied as moot.

criminal lawprocedureproperty