Jeremy D. Fogel

In this case, plaintiff Jonathan Kaltwasser brought a putative class action against AT&T Mobility under California law, alleging false advertising and related claims based on the company's 'fewest dropped calls' promotions for its wireless service. AT&T moved to compel arbitration under its customer contracts, which included class-action waivers; the district court initially denied the motion, finding the waivers unconscionable under California’s Discover Bank rule, and that ruling was affirmed on appeal. After the Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts the Discover Bank rule, AT&T renewed its motion. The court granted the motion to compel arbitration, concluding that the arbitration agreements are enforceable and that the class allegations must be resolved individually through arbitration, rendering the motion to strike class allegations moot.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Young v. Facebook, Inc., a plaintiff with bipolar disorder sued Facebook after her account was deactivated twice for sending excessive friend requests to strangers, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, and state contract and negligence claims based on Facebook's failure to provide human customer service accommodations. The court granted Facebook's motion to dismiss the amended complaint without leave to amend. It held that the ADA claim failed because Ninth Circuit precedent limits "places of public accommodation" to physical locations, excluding websites like Facebook. The contract and negligence claims were dismissed for lack of any breach of the stated terms of service, no facts showing violation of the implied covenant of good faith, and no identified legal duty owed by Facebook.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

Chubb Custom Insurance Company sued former property owners and operators under CERCLA and various state laws to recover response costs it paid on behalf of its insured, Taube-Koret, for cleaning up hazardous substance releases at several parcels in Palo Alto, California. The insured had acquired the contaminated sites and been ordered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to perform remediation work. Defendants including Ford Motor, Chevron, Sun Microsystems, and others moved to dismiss the third amended complaint. The court granted the motions without leave to amend, concluding that Chubb had not pleaded a viable direct cost-recovery claim under CERCLA § 107(a) or a subrogation claim under CERCLA § 112(c) or other applicable law.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

Holomaxx Technologies, an email marketing service provider, sued Microsoft for blocking and throttling its marketing emails sent to Microsoft users, alleging that Microsoft's spam filters wrongly targeted legitimate emails. The complaint asserted nine claims, including violations of the federal Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, plus state claims for intentional interference with contract and prospective business advantage, wiretapping, defamation, false light, and unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code section 17200. Microsoft moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion, dismissing all claims with leave to amend except the false light claim, which was dismissed without leave, because the complaint failed to adequately allege lack of consent for email scanning, economic injury, or other elements required for each cause of action, and the UCL claim depended on the viability of the others.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case is a class action antitrust suit brought by direct purchaser Ritz Camera & Image against SanDisk and executive Eliyahou Harari under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, alleging monopolization and conspiracy to monopolize the NAND flash memory market through fraudulently procured patents. Ritz claimed Harari converted technology from a prior employer, obtained the key 'crown jewel' patents by withholding prior art from the USPTO, and then enforced them via litigation and settlements to drive out competitors like STMicroelectronics, resulting in higher prices. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of Walker Process standing by a purchaser (as opposed to a competitor), failure to plead a conspiracy, lack of antitrust standing, and inadequate market definition. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that direct purchasers have standing to assert Walker Process claims and that the complaint otherwise stated plausible antitrust theories.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc., a group of PayPal users filed a putative class action alleging that the company breached its user agreement and related duties by placing unexplained holds on their accounts for up to 180 days, preventing access to funds, and failing to provide adequate notice or justification. The claims included breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of California consumer protection statutes. The court granted PayPal's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, concluding that the user agreement expressly authorized holds for security or risk reasons and that the plaintiffs had not pled sufficient facts to support their other theories, while also granting the unopposed motion to appoint interim lead, liaison, and class counsel. Plaintiffs were given thirty days to file an amended complaint.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves condemned prisoners challenging the constitutionality of California's 2010 lethal-injection execution protocol under the Eighth Amendment. The court addressed a partial motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' facial challenge to the written regulations and their claim regarding the availability of a known alternative protocol that would reduce the risk of severe pain. The court denied the motion, reasoning that at the pleading stage the inquiry is limited to whether the claims are legally cognizable and factually sufficient, not their ultimate merit, and that the unchallenged as-applied claim would proceed regardless. The court also invoked its supervisory authority to narrow the proceedings and discovery to expedite resolution of the core factual issues regarding the risk of inadequate anesthesia.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs who obtained Option ARM mortgages from First Magnus Financial Corporation between 2005 and 2006; the loans featured initial low 'teaser' rates that led to negative amortization, and the loans were later purchased by the Countrywide defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that the Truth-in-Lending Disclosure Statements and notes failed to clearly disclose that negative amortization was certain to occur and that Countrywide had dictated or drafted the misleading loan documents as part of a securitization scheme. The court granted Countrywide's motion to dismiss the claims under TILA and California law. It reasoned that plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged Countrywide's status as assignees subject to TILA liability, that the claims did not relate back to the original complaint against First Magnus, and that allegations of Countrywide's involvement were too speculative to support fraud or aiding-and-abetting theories.

business & regulatoryproperty

In Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp., plaintiffs alleged that Sleep Number beds manufactured between 1987 and 2005 were defectively designed to trap moisture and develop mold, asserting claims including strict product liability, negligence, breach of warranties, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and other consumer protection statutes, while seeking to represent a nationwide class of purchasers. The court granted the defendants' motions to strike the class allegations and dismiss the claims, while denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs had repeatedly added new claims, parties, and allegations without court permission in violation of prior orders, that the class claims were unmanageable due to individualized issues such as statutes of limitations, notice requirements, and varying warranties, and that the operative complaint failed to adequately plead key elements of the asserted causes of action.

torts & liabilityprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves California homeowners who refinanced their mortgage in 2007 and later defaulted, leading to a trustee's sale of the property by Wells Fargo in 2010; they sued in state court alleging wrongful foreclosure, improper notices under Civil Code sections 2924 and 2923.5, violations of Business and Professions Code section 17200, predatory lending, and related claims for cancellation of deed, quiet title, and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs moved to remand for lack of diversity jurisdiction, while the defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court denied remand, holding that Wells Fargo is a citizen only of South Dakota under 28 U.S.C. § 1348 and Supreme Court precedent in Wachovia Bank v. Schmidt, creating complete diversity. It granted the motion to dismiss, reasoning that the Home Owners' Loan Act and OTS regulations preempt the state lending and foreclosure claims, the UCL claim was derivative and insufficiently pled, and other claims failed due to the absence of required notices or facts supporting relief, with limited leave to amend.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedurefederal power

In this declaratory relief action filed by HTC against TPL in 2008, TPL Chairman Daniel Leckrone, a licensed California attorney who was not counsel of record, repeatedly contacted HTC executives directly to discuss settlement and urge joining TPL's licensing program, despite requests from HTC's counsel to cease. HTC moved for an order prohibiting Leckrone's contacts, arguing they violated California Rule of Professional Conduct 2-100, which bars attorneys from communicating with represented parties about the subject of the representation without consent. The court denied the motion, reasoning that Rule 2-100 targets attorneys acting in a representational capacity rather than corporate principals like Leckrone (who co-founded TPL decades earlier), and that HTC presented no evidence of any actual improper effect on the litigation or its attorney-client relationship.

procedure

ZL Technologies sued Gartner, Inc. for defamation and trade libel, alleging that its low 'Niche' ranking in Gartner's annual Magic Quadrant report on email archiving software and an analyst's statement equating ZL's product with a competitor's were false and harmful. The court granted Gartner's motion to dismiss the amended complaint without leave to amend. It held that the challenged statements were not actionable because they constituted protected opinions rather than provably false assertions of fact, as the report's quadrant placements and comparative evaluations rested on subjective assessments of market vision and execution that could not be objectively verified as true or false. The court further noted that the comparison to the higher-ranked competitor could not reasonably be read as defamatory in context.

free speechtorts & liability

In Tietsworth v. Sears, plaintiffs purchased Kenmore Elite Oasis washing machines from Sears that were manufactured by Whirlpool and alleged that the machines contained a defect in the electronic control boards causing them to stop mid-cycle with error codes, which defendants knew about but concealed while making misrepresentations about the machines' quality, efficiency, durability, and performance. The claims included fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, violations of the CLRA and UCL, unjust enrichment, and a claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and granted the motion to strike the class allegations, with leave to amend, primarily because the named plaintiffs lacked standing to represent a class where some had not experienced the defect within the warranty period and the allegations did not sufficiently support certain claims like active concealment or reliance on specific representations. The core reasoning focused on pleading standards under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6), the insufficiency of allegations regarding defendants' knowledge and duty to disclose, and the requirements for class certification under Rule 23.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Rosa v. City of Seaside, parents sued TASER International on behalf of their deceased son, alleging that a TASER electronic control device contributed to his death during a 2004 police encounter and that TASER was strictly liable or negligent for failing to warn about risks including metabolic acidosis. All other claims had been dismissed, leaving only the tort claims against TASER. The court granted TASER's motion for summary judgment, finding no triable issue of fact because the scientific and medical evidence available at the time the device was manufactured and distributed did not show that TASER knew or should have known of the specific risk. The decision rested on the absence of evidence establishing the knowledge element required for both strict liability failure-to-warn and negligence claims under California law.

torts & liabilitycivil rights

In Goddard v. Google, Inc., plaintiff Jenna Goddard alleged that Google facilitated a scheme of fraudulent mobile subscription service advertisements through its AdWords program, causing harm to her and similarly situated users. The court granted Google's motion to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The decision rested on Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act, which immunizes website operators from liability for third-party content unless the operator is also an information content provider that materially contributes to the unlawful content. The court found that the complaint contained only conclusory allegations without specific facts showing Google created or developed the ads, and that providing neutral tools like AdWords does not remove CDA protection even when Google knew of potential misuse.

free speechprocedure

This case concerns Verizon's motions for civil contempt sanctions against OnlineNIC and for denial of OnlineNIC's motion for relief from a default judgment, arising from alleged violations of a Modified Injunction and Receiver Order in a domain name transfer dispute. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that OnlineNIC committed multiple violations of the orders, including untimely submission of the injunction to ICANN and VeriSign, improper domain transfers, failures to provide required data and documents, and submission of inaccurate sworn certificates. It granted the contempt sanctions motion in part, awarding monetary sanctions and attorneys' fees, but denied relief from the default judgment after determining OnlineNIC's conduct was culpable and lacked good cause. The court modified the judgment to require Verizon to prove its damages in adversarial proceedings rather than entering it by default. Core reasoning relied on the parties' undisputed facts, credibility assessments, and Ninth Circuit standards for contempt and Rule 60(b) relief.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute over the ownership of three water wells on the Half Moon Bay Airport property, which the County of San Mateo acquired from the federal government in 1948 under a deed with a reversion clause. Montara Water and Sanitary District initiated eminent domain proceedings in state court to acquire the wells and obtained an interlocutory order granting it early possession. The United States, acting through the FAA, intervened and recorded a notice of reverter, asserting that the condemnation efforts triggered the deed's reversion provision and that federal law preempted the state action. The court granted summary judgment to the United States, concluding that the possession order justified the reversion so that the federal government now owns the wells, and that even absent a valid reversion the condemnation would be preempted by federal statutes and regulations governing airport property. The core reasoning focused on the language of the 1947 deed and principles of obstacle preemption under federal aviation law.

propertyfederal powerprocedure

The case involved eBay suing multiple defendants for allegedly running a 'cookie stuffing' scheme that secretly directed web users to eBay's site to fraudulently earn advertising affiliate fees, in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, RICO, and various state laws including fraud and unfair competition. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing improper venue due to a forum selection clause in a related contract and failure to state a claim. The court granted the venue motions with leave to amend, directing that the case belongs in Los Angeles courts under the clause because the claims arise from the same conduct covered by the affiliate agreement administered by Commission Junction. It also granted in part the motion to dismiss certain federal claims for insufficient pleading but deferred ruling on state claims pending amendment. The decision rested on the broad scope of the forum selection clause and the need for more specific allegations to support the statutory violations.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case is a putative class action by purchasers of Apple's 20-inch Aluminum iMac computers alleging that Apple marketed the devices for photo and video editing with claims of crisp, high-quality displays while using an inferior six-bit monitor technology that displays only 262,144 colors and relies on dithering and frame rate control, leading to issues such as color shifting and flickering. Plaintiffs asserted claims including fraud by concealment and breach of express warranty based on Apple's press releases, website statements, and technical specifications that did not disclose the display differences from prior models or the 24-inch version. The court granted Apple's motion to dismiss the complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and to strike the class allegations, with leave to amend, on grounds that the named plaintiffs lacked standing for some claims, failed to plead reliance or particular facts for fraud, and that individual issues of reliance and exposure to representations would predominate, precluding nationwide class certification under Rule 23(b)(3).

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves a borrower who obtained an Option Adjustable Rate Mortgage and sued the lender for violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and its implementing regulations, along with state claims for unfair business practices and breach of contract, alleging that the loan documents failed to clearly disclose the interest rate structure, the discounted initial rate, and the certainty of negative amortization if only minimum payments were made. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motions to dismiss and to strike, permitting certain TILA claims based on inadequate disclosures under 12 C.F.R. §§ 226.17, 226.18, and 226.19 to proceed while dismissing others as duplicative or insufficient. The core reasoning focused on whether the provided Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement and Loan Program Disclosure met the clear and conspicuous standard required by law, taking the complaint's allegations as true and examining the specific payment schedule and note terms for potential negative amortization effects.

business & regulatory