District Court, S.D. California — appointed by George H.W. Bush
Keenan v. Pyle (In Re Keenan)
District Court, S.D. California · 2011-12-13
This case involves a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filed by debtor James W. Keenan in 1996, in which the debtor appealed bankruptcy court orders from 2010 that approved the final plan distribution, discharged the liquidating trustee, exonerated bonds, closed the case, and granted final fee applications for the trustee and professionals. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's orders and dismissed the appeal. The court reasoned that the plan's conditions precedent had been met because all claims against the trustee had been resolved by final orders (including dismissals affirmed through the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court), creditors had been paid, and the required reserves for appeals and indemnification were properly set and supported by the record. Challenges to the reserves were deemed waived or barred by prior unappealed orders and the law of the case doctrine.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Espinoza v. Bank of America, N.A.
District Court, S.D. California · 2011-10-13 · cited 6×
In this case, homeowners who had financed their San Diego property with multiple mortgages, including one from Bank of America, defaulted and arranged a short sale approved by the lienholders; after the sale closed and Bank of America reconveyed its deed of trust (explicitly stating the underlying debt remained unsatisfied), the bank attempted to collect the remaining balance through a collection agency. The plaintiffs sued for declaratory relief, claiming that California Code of Civil Procedure sections 580d and 580e, along with common-law anti-deficiency protections, barred collection. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice, holding that the statutory provisions did not apply to this short-sale scenario (particularly given the timing of section 580e) and that the common-law Hibernia rule was inapplicable because the lender had not secretly extinguished its security interest without the borrowers' knowledge. The reconveyance expressly preserved the debt, and the plaintiffs had actively sought and negotiated the short sale.
property
Kohler v. Flava Enterprises, Inc.
District Court, S.D. California · 2011-09-26 · cited 14×
In Kohler v. Flava Enterprises, Inc., a paraplegic plaintiff who uses a wheelchair sued a retail clothing store under the Americans with Disabilities Act and related California statutes, alleging barriers including an inadequate dressing room bench, a high checkout counter with items obstructing access, missing or improperly placed accessibility signs, and high clothing hooks. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ADA, Unruh Act, and Disabled Persons Act claims while denying the plaintiff's cross-motion, finding no genuine issues of material fact because the store provided equivalent access through an alternative larger dressing room and a lowered counter that was usable despite some items on it. The court also dismissed the remaining state-law claim under the California Health and Safety Code without prejudice after declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once the federal claims were resolved.
civil rightsprocedure
Carter v. City of Carlsbad
District Court, S.D. California · 2011-06-30 · cited 4×
The case arose from a 2009 incident in which Carlsbad police officers approached William Cody Carter, who was intoxicated and arguing with companions on a public street while dressed in a Marine costume; after Carter failed to comply with orders and appeared to assume a throwing stance, an officer deployed a taser in dart mode. Carter sued the officers and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force and related municipal-liability claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established at the time of the incident under then-existing Ninth Circuit precedent, but that genuine factual disputes existed concerning the City’s taser-training practices and thus precluded summary judgment on the Monell claim.
civil rightsprocedure
United States v. Harvey
District Court, S.D. California · 2011-06-23 · cited 13×
The case involved defendant Roshaja Harvey, who was on supervised release after serving time for armed bank robbery and faced allegations of violating a mandatory condition by using marijuana, which he claimed was for medical purposes under a doctor's recommendation and California law. The court held a hearing and concluded that Harvey had violated the condition requiring him to refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance. The court reasoned that the condition provided adequate notice and was not vague, as it encompassed federal law prohibitions under the Controlled Substances Act, which classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug with no accepted medical use and does not permit valid prescriptions or orders for such substances. The court further noted that compliance with state law or a doctor's recommendation does not override federal prohibitions, and Harvey had been advised against such use.
criminal lawfederal power
Peruta v. County of San Diego
District Court, S.D. California · 2010-12-10 · cited 23×
This case involved plaintiffs who were denied concealed carry weapon (CCW) licenses by San Diego County under California Penal Code § 12050 because they failed to show "good cause," defined as circumstances distinguishing them from the general public and placing them in harm's way. Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the policy violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms as recognized in Heller and McDonald, along with equal protection and right-to-travel claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that Heller and McDonald protect only the core right to possess handguns in the home for self-defense, not a right to carry loaded firearms in public, and that the good cause requirement imposes at most a burden on a non-core activity that is subject to rational basis review and passes constitutional muster. The court also rejected the equal protection and residency-related claims as unsupported.
gunscivil rights