Gary Allen Feess

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deutsche Bank, as trustee for investors in mortgage-backed securities issued by IndyMac Bank, sued the FDIC in its capacities as receiver and corporate entity, alleging breaches of Pooling and Servicing Agreements (PSAs) stemming from IndyMac's 2008 failure and the FDIC's subsequent 2009 sale of servicing rights to OneWest Bank without obtaining consent or transferring related liabilities. The FDIC moved to dismiss, arguing that FIRREA preempted consent requirements, authorized the transfers, and barred various claims including those for equitable relief or constitutional violations. The court dismissed with prejudice the breach of contract claim insofar as it challenged the failure to transfer obligations, along with claims for breach of fiduciary duty, takings, and due process violations, but denied dismissal of the breach claim based on lack of consent, the covenant of good faith claim, and certain constructive trust claims against the receiver while permitting amendments against the corporate FDIC. The reasoning centered on FIRREA's provisions governing asset transfers from failed institutions and qualified financial contracts, distinguishing between permissible transfers and contractual consent obligations that survived the statute.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case concerned a complex financing arrangement in which Orient Fisheries, Inc. (OFI) indemnified a trust vehicle managed by J.P. Morgan for loans made by Mexican banks to shrimp boat operators, backed by a Mexican government guarantee program administered by Banco de México. After the operators' agent defaulted in 2006, the banks called on the guarantee, Banco de México paid approximately $5.5 million, and it then sued OFI for reimbursement under the indemnification clause, asserting an alternative claim for illegitimate enrichment. The court granted summary judgment to Banco de México on the indemnification claim, concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the default, OFI's obligations, or the applicability of the ten-year statute of limitations under Mexican commercial law, and dismissed the alternative claim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Stephen Jackson Jr., who had been convicted in California state court of multiple counts of forcible rape, sexual penetration, oral copulation, and related offenses, resulting in a sentence of life with a minimum term of 70 years plus 13 years. Petitioner raised claims including violations of his right to self-representation under Faretta v. California and issues with the appointment and role of standby counsel, as well as denial of law library access. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, denying the petition with prejudice. The core reasoning was that petitioner failed to show any constitutional violation in the trial court's handling of his pro se status or related matters, and he had not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right warranting a certificate of appealability.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over life insurance policy riders that provided a critical illness benefit for angioplasty if certain conditions were met, including evidence of significant EKG changes before the procedure. Plaintiff Paul Roth underwent angioplasty and submitted a claim, but Defendant Madison National Life Insurance Company denied it because no such EKG evidence existed in the medical records, though Madison later paid the benefit after litigation began. Roth sued for breach of contract and insurance bad faith, conceding the missing EKG documentation but arguing the riders' terms should be disregarded due to medical necessity. The court granted Madison's motion for partial summary judgment on the bad faith claim, reasoning that an insurer does not act in bad faith by insisting on compliance with the express, unambiguous language of its policies.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerns a dispute between Banco de México, as trustee of a Mexican government loan guarantee program (FOPESCA), and Orient Fisheries, Inc. (OFI), an American seafood importer, arising from OFI's role in financing Mexican shrimp producers through a complex arrangement involving Habaire as local agent, a special purpose vehicle trust, and certificates of deposit used as security for loans and inventory financing. OFI provided guarantees for Habaire's performance under the Habaire Servicing Agreement and related amendments, and the dispute centers on whether OFI remains liable after assignments of the certificates to Banco de México, along with claims of fraud and unjust enrichment. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment, evaluating evidence of notice to Habaire, the validity of assignments, statute of limitations under Mexican law for fraud claims, and the elements of unjust enrichment. It rejected arguments that fraud must be reexamined under pleading standards at summary judgment and analyzed the sufficiency of evidence regarding whether benefits were conferred or fraudulent acts occurred.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Rafael Madrigal, Jr., who was convicted in California state court of attempted murder with firearm and gang enhancements arising from a 2000 gang-related shooting in East Los Angeles. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and granted the petition, ordering that the petitioner be retried within sixty days or released from the conviction's consequences. The core reasoning centered on findings that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and present available exculpatory alibi evidence, including testimony from the petitioner's brother and work supervisor confirming his presence at work during the shooting, which prejudiced the defense and undermined confidence in the verdict; other claims such as a Brady violation were noted but not fully resolved.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Intamin against Magnetar, alleging that Magnetar's magnetic braking systems for roller coasters infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,062,350, which describes an eddy current braking system using magnets and a conducting rail for amusement rides like drop towers. The court granted Magnetar's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. The core reasoning was that dependent claim 10 was invalid because it omitted an essential element of the independent claim (a conducting rail attached to and extending the length of the fixed ride structure), the independent claim was not literally infringed by Magnetar's reversed configuration with a conducting fin on the car, and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was barred by prosecution history estoppel narrowing the claims during patent examination; the court also referenced unclean hands as an additional basis.

business & regulatoryproperty

In Sarkisyan v. CIGNA Healthcare of California, Inc., parents sued their health plan administrator after it denied coverage for a liver transplant that their daughter's doctors said could save her life, leading to her death from liver failure; the claims included breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair business practices under California Business & Professions Code section 17200, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. CIGNA removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss, arguing that ERISA sections 502(a) and 514(a) preempted the claims because they arose from a denial of benefits under an ERISA-governed employee health plan. The court granted the motion as to the contract, covenant, and section 17200 claims, holding that they directly related to the plan's coverage decision and were therefore preempted, and dismissed them with prejudice. It denied the motion as to the emotional distress claim, however, to the extent the claim rested on separate conduct by CIGNA employees more than a year after the coverage denial. The court reasoned that ERISA's preemptive reach is limited to claims that challenge or relate to benefit determinations under an ERISA plan.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Chandler v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, the plaintiff sought to recover his remaining out-of-pocket rental car expenses from his insurer after the insurer obtained partial reimbursement from the third-party tortfeasor's insurer, invoking California's made-whole rule to argue that the insurer could not recoup any funds until the insured was fully compensated. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing and that his claims were unripe. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff had not yet attempted to recover directly from the tortfeasor, so he could not demonstrate any injury traceable to the insurer's subrogation efforts or show that future recovery was impossible; the court found persuasive a New York precedent allowing insurers to pursue reimbursement without first making the insured whole unless the insured had tried and failed to recover from the tortfeasor.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a dispute between Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. and Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. over rights to the film "Watchmen," with Fox suing for copyright infringement, interference with contract, and breach of contract after Warner Bros. planned to release the movie. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment focused on whether Fox retained distribution rights. It ruled that Fox owns a copyright interest including at least the right to distribute "Watchmen," granting Fox summary judgment on the copyright claim. The core reasoning rested on contract interpretation: under the 1991 Quitclaim Agreement, 1994 Settlement and Release Agreement, and Turnaround Notice, combined with the parties' course of conduct, producer Lawrence Gordon never paid the required buy-out price to acquire Fox's rights, so those rights remained with Fox and took priority over Warner Bros.' later-acquired interest.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiff Livia Milano, who created a treatment for a proposed reality TV show called 'From Fat to Phat' about overweight contestants competing to lose weight while living together, which she pitched to Twentieth Television. After Twentieth declined the project, NBC Universal developed and aired the similar show 'The Biggest Loser,' leading Milano to sue NBC, Twentieth, and related parties for copyright infringement of her treatment along with state-law misappropriation claims. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the copyright claim, ruling that Milano's treatment consisted primarily of unprotectable ideas, stock concepts, scenes a faire, and public-domain elements rather than original expression, and that 'The Biggest Loser' included key features absent from the treatment. The court dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice for lack of federal jurisdiction.

propertyprocedure

In Greenbaum v. Islamic Republic of Iran, family members who obtained a default judgment against Iran for funding a terrorist bombing sought to enforce that judgment by moving for assignment of Iran's rights to payments from several oil companies. The court granted the motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a) and California Code of Civil Procedure § 708.510. It reasoned that the statute permits issuance of an assignment order without first proving the third-party companies owe money to Iran, because the order functions as a placeholder that does not affect any obligor's rights until notice is given, and any defenses may be raised at the enforcement stage. The court made no determination on whether the oil companies actually owe Iran any amounts.

procedure

This securities class action involved investors alleging that American Funds and related entities charged excessive management and marketing fees on mutual funds and used portions of those fees as undisclosed kickbacks to brokers to steer investors into the funds, violating Section 12(a)(2) of the 1933 Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act, and related control-person liability provisions. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. The core reasoning was that all claims were time-barred under the applicable statutes of limitations because regulatory investigations, SEC settlements, and news reports from 2003 had put investors on inquiry notice of the alleged practices more than three years before the suits were filed in 2006 and 2007; a prior similar action filed by other plaintiffs did not toll the limitations period for these claims or this putative class.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a False Claims Act qui tam action brought by relator Karen Cericola against Fannie Mae and others, alleging that Fannie Mae submitted thousands of non-qualifying Title I mortgage loans to the federal government for insurance payments. The court addressed Fannie Mae's motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint for failure to plead fraud with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), as well as arguments regarding the statute of limitations and a motion to strike. The court dismissed the complaint because it contained no specific allegations of fraudulent loans actually submitted by Fannie Mae, as opposed to loans from a separate entity (Ben Franklin Bank) that had already been settled in prior litigation, though it granted leave to amend; the court denied the limitations challenge, holding that the original complaint's attempt to allege Fannie Mae's submission of false claims allowed relation back under Rule 15(c). The motion to strike was denied as moot.

business & regulatoryprocedure