District Court, C.D. California — appointed by William Jefferson Clinton
Kohler v. REDNAP, INC.
District Court, C.D. California · 2011-06-28 · cited 16×
In Kohler v. Rednap, Inc., a physically disabled plaintiff sued a Denny's restaurant and its owner for barriers that prevented access to the premises, asserting a federal claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act along with related state-law claims under the California Disabled Persons Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and Health and Safety Code section 19955. The defendant moved to dismiss the state-law claims, arguing that the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because the claims raised novel or complex state-law issues, substantially predominated over the federal claim, and presented other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction. The court denied the motion and retained jurisdiction over all claims. It reasoned that the state statutes did not authorize daily damages for ongoing deterrence (a conclusion reinforced by a 2008 statutory amendment), the state claims did not predominate, and no exceptional circumstances existed that would justify declining jurisdiction under principles of economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.
civil rightsprocedure
Quevedo v. MACY'S, INC.
District Court, C.D. California · 2011-06-16 · cited 32×
In this case, plaintiff Carlos Quevedo, a former Macy's employee, brought a putative class action alleging that Macy's violated California Labor Code sections 201 and 202 by failing to timely pay final wages upon termination, seeking waiting time penalties under section 203 and civil penalties under section 2699. Macy's moved to compel arbitration under its Solutions InSTORE dispute resolution program, which includes a binding arbitration step covering employment claims but prohibits class or collective actions. The court granted the motion to compel, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California precedents invalidating class action waivers in arbitration agreements, as clarified by the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, and that Macy's had not waived its right to arbitrate by waiting until after that ruling to file its motion.
labor & employmentprocedure
Wild v. NBC UNIVERSAL, INC.
District Court, C.D. California · 2011-05-24 · cited 5×
The case involved a claim by Jazan Wild, author of the graphic novel "Carnival of Souls," against NBC Universal and related entities, alleging that the fourth season of the TV series "Heroes" infringed his copyright by incorporating a carnival clan with special powers. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that the copyright claim failed as a matter of law because the carnival theme and associated elements are generic ideas not protected by copyright, and the works differ substantially in their expression of plot, characters, and other elements. The court also held that the state law claims were preempted by the Copyright Act as they sought recovery for the same alleged misappropriation without additional transformative elements.
property
Gant v. County of Los Angeles
District Court, C.D. California · 2011-04-26 · cited 9×
This case involves plaintiffs Kelvin Gant and Jose Alexander Ventura who sued multiple California law enforcement agencies and officers after being arrested or detained on outstanding warrants issued for other individuals with similar names. The surviving claims include § 1983 actions alleging Fourth Amendment unlawful seizures and Fourteenth Amendment over-detentions, plus related state-law claims under the Bane Act and for false imprisonment. On defendants' motions for summary judgment, the court analyzed whether the agencies' warrant identification systems and booking procedures created liability, noting that over-detention claims turn on whether officials should have known the plaintiffs were not the warrant subjects. The opinion details the state's fingerprint-based Wanted Persons System and CLETS database, the specific circumstances of each plaintiff's arrest and detention, and the standards for municipal versus individual liability.
civil rightscriminal lawprocedure
McKenzie v. Federal Express Corp.
District Court, C.D. California · 2011-04-14 · cited 29×
The case involved a former FedEx truck driver who sued the company, alleging that its wage statements failed to clearly list total hours worked, the start date of the pay period, and proper overtime rates, in violation of California Labor Code Section 226(a). McKenzie brought claims under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) for penalties, as a class action for damages under Section 226(e), and under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on the PAGA claim for deficient wage statements under Section 226, finding the statements clearly noncompliant, but granted summary judgment to FedEx on the PAGA claim under Section 1198 and on the UCL claim due to lack of economic injury. It denied summary judgment on the damages claim under Section 226(e) because of disputed issues of fact regarding injury and intent.
labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory
Kreeger v. Life Insurance Co. of North America
District Court, C.D. California · 2011-02-28 · cited 1×
The case involved Margaret Kreeger, a former BP attorney diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, who sued Life Insurance Company of North America (LINA) and her employer's plan under ERISA after LINA terminated her long-term disability benefits in 2008 despite initially approving them. The court conducted a bench trial on the administrative record and ruled in Kreeger's favor, ordering reinstatement of benefits. The core reasoning centered on LINA's abuse of discretion, given a structural conflict of interest as both administrator and payor, its failure to engage in meaningful dialogue with the claimant about needed information, its discounting of treating physicians' consistent reports of cognitive decline and pathological fatigue without adequate justification, and its selective reliance on its own reviewers.
labor & employmenthealthcare