Irma Elsa Gonzalez

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case was a putative class action brought by purchasers of Sony Grand WEGA KDF-E A10/A20 Series rear-projection HDTVs, who alleged that the televisions developed display anomalies such as spots and haze caused by a defect in the optical block after the one-year express warranty had expired. Plaintiffs claimed Sony knew of the defect at the time of sale but failed to disclose it, asserting eight causes of action under California laws including the UCL, FAL, CLRA, Song-Beverly Act, Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and claims for breach of express and implied warranties, as well as similar laws from other states. The court granted Sony's motion to dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Complaint with prejudice under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 9(b). The core reasoning was that manufacturers owe no duty to disclose defects that manifest after the warranty period expires, that knowledge of potential future failures does not create an actionable claim, and that the express warranty's time limitations barred recovery for post-warranty issues.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the Council on American-Islamic Relations and others to the FBI seeking records on surveillance programs targeting Muslim groups following a news report about leaked classified files. The plaintiffs challenged the FBI's decision to redact or withhold hundreds of pages of responsive documents. After an in camera review of a representative sample, the court granted summary judgment to the FBI, upholding the withholdings under multiple FOIA exemptions including those for national security, law enforcement techniques, and privacy. The court reasoned that the agency had properly justified the exemptions through detailed declarations and that the documents fell within the claimed categories.

civil rightsfree speechreligious libertycriminal law

This case is a patent infringement action in which Presidio Components Inc. alleged that American Technical Ceramics Corp. infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,816,356, which covers a multilayer capacitor with external contacts forming fringe-effect capacitance, along with related false marking claims concerning Presidio's own earlier BB capacitors. The court resolved seven post-trial motions by denying Presidio's request for a permanent injunction, granting in part and denying in part motions for post-trial remedies and for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, partially granting ATC's proposed findings on false marking fines while denying motions concerning indefiniteness and inequitable conduct, and adjusting a false marking penalty calculation to account for all relevant sales periods. These rulings rested on the trial record regarding the patent claims, evidence of sales and advertising of unmarked products, and the absence of demonstrated irreparable harm to support injunctive relief.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a lawsuit by Erica Welker against attorney Daniel J. Horwitz, who was collecting a medical debt on behalf of a creditor. Welker alleged that a dunning letter Horwitz sent her, which accompanied a state court summons and complaint, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to include required disclosures about the debt amount, creditor identity, and validation rights. The court granted Welker's motion for summary judgment in full, finding that the letter did not comply with FDCPA section 1692g and related state requirements, and rejecting the defendant's defenses including arguments about litigation privilege and definitions of debt collectors under state law.

business & regulatorycivil rights

In United States v. McGill, the defendant moved to suppress evidence and statements gathered by Carnival cruise staff after his wife's death aboard the ship Elation, claiming the staff acted as government agents subject to Fourth and Fifth Amendment requirements like warrants and Miranda warnings. The court denied the motion following briefing, oral arguments, and an evidentiary hearing on the extent of government involvement through regulations, reporting agreements, training, internal policies, and case cooperation. The court applied the Ninth Circuit's two-part test and found insufficient government knowledge, acquiescence, or intent by Carnival to assist law enforcement rather than pursue its own ends. The ruling leaves open the possibility of further suppression motions tied specifically to FBI actions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves plaintiffs, including a potential candidate, political committees, and a political party, challenging five provisions of San Diego's Municipal Election Campaign Control Ordinance on First Amendment grounds. The provisions include individual contribution limits to candidates, requirements that independent expenditures be funded only by individual contributions, a 12-month ban on soliciting or accepting contributions before the primary election, a ban on contributions from non-individuals such as corporations and political parties, and related restrictions on non-individual accounts. The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a likelihood of success on the merits for some claims under precedents like Citizens United while upholding others based on the government's interests in preventing corruption. The decision applied the Winter factors for injunctive relief, including irreparable harm from speech restrictions and the balance of equities.

electionsfree speech

This case is a Section 1983 action in which plaintiff Edward Peruta challenges the constitutionality of California's concealed weapons permitting law under Penal Code section 12050, both facially and as applied, alleging violations of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments due to the "good cause" and durational residency requirements, as well as equal protection and right-to-travel claims. Defendant William Gore moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion, holding that the complaint alleges sufficient facts to state plausible claims under cognizable legal theories, including rights recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, and that statutory exemptions for residences, businesses, and immediate danger do not necessarily defeat the claims at the pleading stage.

gunscivil rightscriminal law

This case involves plaintiff David Martin suing Detective Roland Maus and the County of San Diego over the 2002 execution of a search warrant for hair, blood, and saliva samples obtained during an investigation into a 2000 robbery at a business in Encinitas. The claims centered on alleged constitutional violations under the Fourth Amendment and related state law torts stemming from omissions in the warrant affidavit, including the complainant's motive to lie and exculpatory evidence about the plaintiff's location and lack of injuries. After the Ninth Circuit reversed an earlier grant of summary judgment and found the omissions material to probable cause, the district court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary adjudication in full. It granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion, finding triable issues of fact on the federal §1983 claim against the detective and certain state claims but dismissing others such as battery and some immunity-protected actions. The core reasoning relied on the absence of genuine factual disputes for some claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 standards and the Ninth Circuit's prior determination that a corrected affidavit would not support probable cause.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a plaintiff who obtained a $496,000 loan from Wells Fargo in 2006 to purchase property and rebuild a home, but later sued in state court alleging violations of California Civil Code section 2923.6, TILA, Regulation Z, and HOEPA based on the bank's refusal to modify the loan terms after a decline in property value. Wells Fargo removed the action to federal court and moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim or for a more definite statement. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand, concluding that removal was proper and federal question jurisdiction existed due to the federal statutory claims. It granted the motion to dismiss the complaint and denied the alternative motion as moot, based on analysis of removal procedures, standing, and the legal sufficiency of the pleaded causes of action.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

This case is a patent infringement dispute between consumer electronics manufacturers (the Non-Guardian Parties) and Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd. regarding U.S. Patent No. 4,930,158, which describes a system for blocking or substituting objectionable content in video programs using codes and an auxiliary device. The manufacturers sought a declaration of non-infringement for their DVD players' parental control functions. The court granted summary judgment of non-infringement. The core reasoning was that the accused DVD players lacked an "auxiliary device" as required by the patent claims and alternatively did not compare a detected code to a set of selected codes, even under the doctrine of equivalents.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Welker v. Law Office of Horwitz, two plaintiffs filed separate lawsuits against a debt collection law firm alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act based on dunning letters sent to collect unpaid medical debts that listed only the principal amount while noting additional interest, costs, and fees without specifics, and that contained misleading instructions on how to dispute the debts. The defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the letters complied with statutory requirements, were protected by California's litigation privilege under Civil Code § 47, and that the suits violated the state's anti-SLAPP statute. The court denied the motions in full, holding that the complaints plausibly alleged inadequate disclosure of the debt amount and improper dispute procedures under 15 U.S.C. § 1692g, that the letters were not shielded by privilege or anti-SLAPP because debt collection activities alone do not qualify as protected conduct without evidence litigation was seriously contemplated, and that the plaintiffs showed a probability of success on the merits.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves Vaxiion Therapeutics suing its former law firm Foley & Lardner for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the preparation and filing of provisional and non-provisional patent applications for minicell technology between 2001 and 2002. Vaxiion claimed the firm mishandled priority deadlines, failed to address potential conflicts with another client, and made errors in claim drafting and related filings. The court denied Vaxiion's motion for summary adjudication of liability on these claims after determining that genuine disputes of material fact existed, granted the defendant's motion to strike certain supporting evidence, and denied the remaining motion as moot.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Eparama Mau, a Fijian citizen who overstayed his visa and was convicted of driving under the influence with bodily injury, leading to removal proceedings and prolonged detention by immigration authorities. Mau filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his detention as unlawful under Ninth Circuit precedents like Tijani v. Willis, resulting in a prior court order for a bond hearing before an immigration judge to determine if he posed a flight risk or danger to the community. After the immigration judge set a $100,000 bond without finding flight risk and despite Mau's inability to pay even a lower amount, the court interpreted his motion as seeking enforcement of the prior order and granted release. The core reasoning was that the government failed to meet its burden to justify detention, the high bond was unreasonable given Mau's indigency, and continued detention lacked statutory authorization, warranting release under conditions of supervision per 8 C.F.R. § 241.5.

immigrationcriminal lawcivil rights

The case involves Joel Judulang, a lawful permanent resident since 1974 who faced removal proceedings based on 1989 and 2003 criminal convictions and had been detained for over five years. After the court previously granted in part his habeas petition and ordered a bond hearing before an immigration judge, Judulang moved to enforce that order following the denial of bond. The court grants the motion, finding that the government failed to meet its burden of showing current flight risk or danger to the community, as the evidence relied on decades-old convictions without recent supporting facts or indications of ongoing risk. The court therefore orders Judulang's release under appropriate conditions of supervision pursuant to applicable regulations.

immigrationcriminal law