Earl Ben Gilliam

This case involved a dispute over priority of interests in a pleasure vessel that had been sold multiple times through separate federal and state title chains. Maryland National Bank held a mortgage from the original purchaser but failed to record its lien on the New York state certificate of title or retain control of the origination documents, allowing subsequent buyers including claimant Matthew Jones to purchase without notice of the bank's interest. The bank filed an in rem foreclosure action after the original borrower defaulted. The court granted Jones's motion for summary judgment, holding that the bank's negligent conduct justified equitable subordination of its mortgage to Jones's interests under the Ship Mortgage Act of 1920. The decision rested on the principle that where both parties are innocent, the party with the power to prevent the fraud bears the loss.

propertyprocedurefederal power

This case involved a challenge to the Defense Logistics Agency's three-year debarment of contractor Joseph Silverman and his sole proprietorship Calendar Chemicals from all federal government contracts, which was based solely on his misdemeanor conviction for conversion of government property stemming from a 1986 form misstatement about his business status as a manufacturer rather than a dealer. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the government's motion, terminating the debarment effective immediately. The decision rested on findings that the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion because it failed to consider mitigating facts around the conviction, such as Silverman's reasons for pleading guilty and the fact that the government had continued contracting with him for years after the underlying events without issue.

business & regulatorycriminal lawfederal power

In this case, plaintiff Montes sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act after sustaining injuries when a third vehicle, fleeing a U.S. Border Patrol high-speed pursuit, collided with his truck; the Border Patrol vehicle was not directly involved. The government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, asserting immunity under California Vehicle Code § 17004.7. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action without prejudice, reasoning that the FTCA requires the United States to be treated like a private individual where possible, but absent an analogous private activity, liability is determined by reference to state or local entities under like circumstances. Because the Border Patrol had adopted a qualifying written pursuit policy meeting the statutory criteria, California law immunized the United States from liability for injuries caused by the fleeing vehicle.

torts & liabilityfederal power

The case involved the U.S. government suing Sam Ellis Stores, Inc., a retail business near the Mexican border, to recover a tax refund claimed for a $441,330 loss from Mexican peso devaluation on its 1983 tax return. The government initially focused on the amount of the loss but later shifted to argue it should be treated as a capital rather than ordinary loss, leading to voluntary dismissal after the court limited issues to the loss amount. The defendant then moved for litigation costs under 26 U.S.C. § 7430 as the prevailing party. The court granted the motion, awarding nearly $91,000 in fees and costs, after finding the government's position was not substantially justified based on its pre-litigation actions by IRS agents and shifting legal theories during proceedings. The ruling considered the full scope of government conduct under the statute and prior Ninth Circuit precedent.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case arose from a 1987 accident at a shipyard where a personnel basket attached to a crane fell onto the deck of the U.S.S. Sacramento, killing six NASSCO employees and injuring six others. The workers and their families sued multiple defendants, including NASSCO (the employer), AMCA, Microdot, Minnesota Liquidating, and Cleveland Machine Controls, under theories such as negligence, products liability, and breach of warranty; the defendants then filed cross-claims against NASSCO for indemnity and contribution. NASSCO moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) barred the cross-claims as its exclusive liability. The court construed the motion as one to dismiss, held that the LHWCA does not categorically preclude non-vessel third-party indemnity claims unless based on an express or implied contractual or tort duty between the parties, and dismissed the cross-claims with leave to amend because the pleadings failed to clearly allege such a basis.

labor & employmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves homeowners who sued their insurer, State Farm, after the company denied a claim for cracks and settling damage to their La Jolla residence, attributing the loss to excluded causes of earth movement and latent defects based on engineering reports. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues existed as to whether third-party negligence in the original construction was the efficient proximate cause of the damage. Under California law, including Insurance Code section 530 and precedents like Garvey, an excluded condition does not bar coverage if a non-excluded peril created it, and the policies lacked explicit language excluding concurrent or sequential causes. The court found the contractual terms raised questions of intent or ambiguity that required trial rather than resolution on summary adjudication.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved shareholders of Smith Laboratories challenging the company's board-adopted poison pill rights plan, which included a flip-in provision diluting the stakes of certain large shareholders, as violating the preemptive rights clause in the corporation's articles of incorporation. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief claiming the plan was an ultra vires act. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied the plaintiffs' motion. The core reasoning was that the articles' preemptive rights provision, a standard clause under Illinois law, only barred preferences favoring non-shareholders over existing shareholders in new stock issuances and did not prohibit discrimination among existing shareholders as occurred under the poison pill's terms.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Max Verduzco, a long-term employee at General Dynamics' Convair Division who produced components for Department of Defense projects including the Cruise Missile, who sued after selecting early retirement during a workforce reduction and alleged that his termination was in retaliation for internal complaints about lax plant security and substandard assembly materials that he believed compromised national security. The district court addressed the employer's motion to dismiss the claim for retaliatory discharge in violation of public policy under California law. The court denied the motion, holding that the complaint sufficiently stated a claim by alleging a fundamental public interest in safeguarding military technical data, as reflected in federal statutes authorizing protection of such information, and that internal reporting alone could support the cause of action without a requirement to notify outside agencies.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case involves claims by infant plaintiffs and their guardians against Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals for limb reduction birth defects allegedly caused by the mothers' use of the anti-nausea drug Bendectin during pregnancy. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation. The decision relied on the requirement under Federal Rule of Evidence 703 that scientific expert testimony must be based on principles generally accepted in the field, noting the absence of statistically significant epidemiological studies linking Bendectin to the defects, consistent with precedents like Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Plaintiffs' experts' reanalyses and allegations were deemed insufficient to meet the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

The case involved the State of California's state-law consumer protection claims against Trans World Airlines, which TWA sought to remove to federal court under the complete preemption doctrine based on the Federal Aviation Act. The court denied TWA's motion for reconsideration and affirmed its earlier order remanding the case to state court. The core reasoning was that complete preemption requires not only that federal law displace state law but also that it create a federal cause of action the plaintiff could have asserted originally in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441; because the Federal Aviation Act provides no such cause of action applicable to the plaintiff, removal jurisdiction was lacking and the case properly belonged in state court.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved a group of 88 California residents who held property insurance policies with State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and whose claims for property damage were denied by the insurer. The plaintiffs brought seven causes of action, including declaratory relief, fraud, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair practices, breach of fiduciary duty, and RICO violations. The court had previously denied class certification and, on the defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, dismissed with prejudice the breach of fiduciary duty and RICO claims while denying dismissal of the remaining claims. For the fiduciary duty claim, the court reasoned that although the insurer-insured relationship carries duties fiduciary in nature, California law does not recognize an independent cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. For the RICO claim, the court held that a corporation and its officers cannot be liable for civil conspiracy under RICO.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved the State of California suing Trans World Airlines for alleged violations of state consumer protection laws through misleading newspaper advertisements about airline fares and rental car offers. The airline removed the case to federal court, arguing that federal aviation law preempted the state claims and created federal question jurisdiction. The court granted the state's motion to remand the case to state court, holding that the complaint raised only state law issues on its face and that federal law did not provide the state with a cause of action or clearly intend complete preemption allowing removal under precedents like Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust. The court also denied requests to stay or transfer the case due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved plaintiffs alleging that Jason Daubert's limb-reduction birth defects resulted from his mother taking the prescription drug Bendectin during pregnancy, with claims including strict liability and breach of warranty against manufacturer Merrell Dow. Defendant moved for summary adjudication, arguing under California precedent that drug makers are not strictly liable if a product is properly prepared and accompanied by warnings for known or reasonably knowable risks. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the manufacturer's tests adequately revealed risks and whether proper warnings were given. These disputed facts, including alleged flaws in the studies and failure to report findings, precluded summary judgment and required resolution by a trier of fact.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In United States v. Telink, Inc., numerous individual and corporate defendants were indicted on forty-six counts of mail and wire fraud for allegedly receiving kickbacks and bribes in connection with the sale of a telecommunications system to the County of San Diego. After the Supreme Court's McNally decision limited the mail fraud statute to schemes involving property rights, the district court dismissed the indictment on the government's motion for reconsideration. The court found that the indictment alleged a scheme to deprive the county of honest services but did not sufficiently describe any resulting property loss or money deprivation as an essential element of the offense. It held that the indictment therefore failed to satisfy the specificity requirements of Rule 7(c) and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and could not be broadened or reinterpreted after return by the grand jury.

criminal law

The case involved charges of mail and wire fraud against multiple defendants and corporations accused of a scheme to obtain telecommunications equipment contracts from government entities through secret payments and false representations, including depriving the government of honest services and control over its spending. After the Supreme Court's McNally decision limited the mail fraud statute to property rights and prompted a mistrial, the court addressed whether the government's asserted rights qualified as protected property under 18 U.S.C. § 1341. The court ruled that both the right to control how money is spent and the right to expect good-faith performance in contracts constitute property rights, allowing related evidence to be admissible at retrial. It reasoned that the spending-control right directly involves tangible property disposition while the good-faith right resembles protected intangible interests like confidential business information and gives rise to civil liability under contract and tort law.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a labor dispute between Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union 206 and West Coast Sheet Metal Company over contributions to employee benefit trust funds required under a collective bargaining agreement that included an interest arbitration clause. After the union invoked arbitration to impose a successor agreement and filed suit to confirm the award, the trust funds counterclaimed against the employer for breach of contract and ERISA violations, seeking a preliminary injunction to compel ongoing payments. The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction and stayed all further proceedings on the counterclaim pending final resolution of a related NLRB unfair labor practice complaint against the union. The core reasoning was that the NLRB's pending determination on whether the union's actions violated the NLRA could impact the validity of the arbitration award and the employer's obligations, rendering injunctive relief inappropriate and a stay necessary to avoid inconsistent outcomes.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved an antitrust dispute under the Sherman Act in which Southwest Marine alleged that Campbell Industries and others had concertedly induced a Port District to exclude it from access to a graving dock. Following a jury trial that found a violation but was barred by a pari delicto defense, an appeal that reversed the defense, and a remand, the district court addressed a renewed motion for summary judgment along with related requests. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the basis of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, as clarified by In re Airport Car Rental Antitrust Litigation, because the challenged conduct amounted to petitioning and implementing legitimate governmental policy through a contract with the Port District after public review. It denied leave to file a second amended complaint adding fraud or conspiracy allegations because of undue delay and prejudice after years of litigation, and it denied attorney's fees because the Ninth Circuit's conditional directive was not satisfied after a new trial was ordered.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Grant, a U.S. Navy petty officer on active duty aboard the USS FLASHER, filed suit in state court against fellow Navy personnel Pitchford, Kelley, and Hughes alleging battery, conspiracy, negligent supervision, and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from an incident on the ship. The case was removed to federal court, and after the plaintiff amended the complaint to add claims for violations of federal civil rights, the defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, holding that the claims were barred by the Feres doctrine of intra-military immunity because the alleged injuries occurred incident to military service. The court reasoned that the amended complaint merely recast traditional state tort claims as constitutional violations in an attempt to evade Feres, and that no recognized constitutional claim was stated under Bivens.

civil rightsfederal powertorts & liability