Saundra Brown Armstrong

In this case, former UBS financial advisor Brooks Lewis filed a putative class action in California state court alleging that the company's practice of structuring recruitment bonuses as employee forgivable loans violated the California Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law. UBS moved to compel arbitration under multiple agreements the plaintiff had signed, including a U-4 registration form, promissory notes for the bonuses, a compensation plan, and an account reassignment agreement, all of which contained arbitration provisions and class action waivers. The district court granted the motion, finding the arbitration clauses enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, that the class action waivers were valid following the Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, and that the plaintiff's individual claims fell within the scope of the agreements. Because all remaining claims were subject to arbitration, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the action rather than stay it.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In this class action, plaintiff Maritza Pinel alleged that defendant Aurora Loan Services engaged in unfair and unlawful practices through its mortgage Workout Agreements, which required borrowers to make stipulated payments to avoid foreclosure but ultimately allowed Aurora to proceed with a trustee's sale without proper notice or opportunity to cure despite timely payments. Aurora moved to dismiss the first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part, dismissing only the claim under the unlawful prong of California's Unfair Competition Law to the extent it relied on an alleged violation of Civil Code § 1689(b)(2), and denied the motion as to all remaining claims, concluding that the allegations adequately supported the other causes of action concerning the agreement's terms, postponements, and foreclosure process.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff who sued an out-of-state insurance company in California state court for breach of contract and bad faith after denial of disability benefits, along with a petition for a writ of mandamus against the California Insurance Commissioner to revoke approval of the policy. After the state court sustained the Commissioner's demurrer without leave to amend, the insurance company removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds. The plaintiff moved to remand, arguing lack of complete diversity and improper removal. The court granted the motion to remand, holding that the demurrer order was not final for removal purposes because the state appellate process had not been exhausted, and that the dismissal was not a voluntary act by the plaintiff under the voluntary/involuntary rule. The court also rejected the defendant's untimely fraudulent joinder arguments and found that the plaintiff had a plausible claim against the Commissioner.

procedurefederal power

This case concerns efforts by Wells Fargo Bank, as trustee of the Clara Poppic Trust, to recover costs for cleaning up perchloroethylene contamination at commercial property in Berkeley that had been used for a dry cleaning business called Cal Cleaners. The plaintiff brought cost recovery and contribution claims principally under CERCLA against former lessees and operators of the business, as well as cross-claims and third-party claims involving equipment manufacturers. The court addressed a series of motions for summary judgment, partial summary judgment, dismissal, and judgment on the pleadings filed by defendants including Renz, the Estate of Dennison, Umstead, Hoyt, and others. The analysis focused on lease assignments from the 1970s, operator status, and arranger liability under CERCLA, applying the Supreme Court's Burlington Northern standard requiring intentional steps toward disposal or treatment of hazardous substances.

environmentpropertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In Oster v. Standard Insurance, plaintiff Brent Oster sued Standard Insurance Company under ERISA to reverse the denial of long-term disability benefits under his employer's plan. The district court had previously entered judgment for the plaintiff, finding that Standard abused its discretion by failing to conduct a full and fair review and by improperly discounting medical evidence. In this order, the court adopts the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs and awarding $156,720 in fees, $8,095.18 in expenses, and $35,753.40 in prejudgment interest under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g), as the plaintiff prevailed and no special circumstances justified denial.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by a petitioner convicted and sentenced to death in California state court in 1980 for first-degree murder, assault, robbery, and related crimes from two incidents. After extensive procedural history including prior dismissals and summary judgments on most claims, the district court addressed the petitioner's claims regarding shackling during trial and related ineffective assistance of counsel. The court granted the petition in part on Claim 2(c) and Claim 9, vacated the conviction and death sentence, and ordered the state to release or retry the petitioner. The core reasoning was that the shackling violated the petitioner's rights in both the guilt and penalty phases, and trial counsel's inadequate response constituted ineffective assistance under applicable standards, overcoming procedural defaults via cause and prejudice.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Maria Alica Cordon sued Wachovia Mortgage (as successor to World Savings Bank) and a mortgage broker, alleging fraud and related state-law violations in connection with the 2006 refinancing of her home mortgage; she claimed the defendants targeted her as an elderly, non-English speaker with a predatory negative-amortization loan, misrepresented her income and employment on the application, failed to provide Spanish translations, and later mishandled credit reporting and rescission requests. After Cordon dropped her original federal TILA and RESPA claims, the remaining causes of action were for common-law fraud, violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and an accounting. The court granted in part and denied in part Wachovia’s motion to dismiss—finding certain claims preempted by the federal Homeowners’ Loan Act while permitting others to proceed—and denied the accompanying motion to strike, applying the plausibility standard under Twombly and considering judicially noticeable loan documents.

business & regulatoryproperty

In this patent infringement case, AT&T Intellectual Property sued TiVo for allegedly infringing four U.S. patents related to technology systems. TiVo filed requests for reexamination of all asserted patent claims with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and moved to stay the district court proceedings pending the outcome of those reexaminations. The court granted the stay, finding that the case was still in an early stage with no discovery or trial date set, that the reexaminations would likely simplify the issues for trial, and that a stay would not unduly prejudice the plaintiffs given the timing of the requests.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This ERISA case concerns plaintiff Brent Oster's claim for long-term disability benefits under his employer's group policy issued by Standard Insurance after a 2003 rear-end car accident allegedly caused cognitive impairments that prevented him from continuing his work as an Engineering Technical Director at LucasArts. The parties filed cross-motions for judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52, and the court made findings of fact regarding Oster's occupation, the policy's terms defining disability and material duties, the accident details, medical treatments, and Standard's dual role as administrator and payer creating a conflict of interest. The court concluded that review is for abuse of discretion under the policy's allocation of authority provision, admitted limited extrinsic evidence on the conflict but denied supplementation of the record with post-decision medical reports, and requested further briefing on the exact period of claimed benefits.

labor & employmentprocedure

In United States v. Gates, the defendant faced federal charges for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, stemming from a warrantless probation search of a residence on 98th Avenue in Oakland that uncovered marijuana, firearms, ammunition, and related items. The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search was unlawful. The court granted the motion, holding that even accepting the government's account of events, the officers lacked probable cause to believe the defendant resided at the searched address, as required for a probation search of a third party's home. The core reasoning focused on inconsistencies in the defendant's reported addresses, insufficient corroboration tying him to the specific location, and the absence of reliable information establishing his residence there despite the probation search condition.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a putative class action by AOL members (including Doe 1 and Doe 2) alleging that AOL inadvertently published a database containing millions of their confidential search queries and personal information, in violation of California consumer protection statutes including the CLRA, CRA, FAL, and UCL. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to stay proceedings and granted in part AOL's motion for judgment on the pleadings. It dismissed the CRA claim with prejudice, reasoning that the statute governs only the disposal of customer records to prevent identity theft and does not apply to the alleged public disclosure. It also dismissed the CLRA damages claim without prejudice for failure to provide the required pre-suit notice, while permitting the remaining claims to proceed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Newson v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., homeowners alleged that a mortgage broker and lender defrauded them during a 2006 refinancing by misrepresenting interest rates, inflating their income on the application without their knowledge, and failing to provide proper disclosures, leading to unaffordable loans; claims included violations of TILA and RESPA as well as fraud, breach of contract, and unfair business practices. The district court granted in part and denied in part Countrywide's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, granted in part and denied in part the motion to strike, and denied the motion to expunge lis pendens. The court reasoned that some state-law claims were preempted by federal regulations governing federal savings associations or failed to meet pleading standards under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6), while certain federal claims and non-preempted state claims could proceed based on the allegations of inadequate disclosures and post-closing conduct.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

In Cota v. Maxwell-Jolly, a class of elderly and disabled Medi-Cal recipients sued the California Department of Health Care Services and its director to block new, stricter eligibility rules for Adult Day Health Care services mandated by Assembly Bill ABx4 5, which were set to take effect in March 2010 and would have reduced or eliminated benefits for many participants. The plaintiffs alleged that the changes violated Title II of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Medicaid Act, and related state laws by risking institutionalization and discriminating against people with disabilities. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, halting implementation of the new requirements. Its reasoning focused on the plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits, given the state's obligations under federal law to ensure continued access to community-based services for those with high medical needs.

healthcarecivil rights

The case involved a service mark infringement claim under the Lanham Act brought by a Delaware wealth management firm (plaintiff) against a California real estate investment company (defendant), both using the name "Sand Hill Advisors." The plaintiff sought to prevent the defendant's continued use of the mark. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning applied the Sleekcraft factors for likelihood of confusion, finding that the parties offered distinct services to different consumers in separate markets, with little evidence of actual confusion and most factors weighing in the defendant's favor.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Olivera v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the Truth in Lending Act and California's Unfair Competition Law during the refinancing of their home mortgage by providing a blank notice of the right to cancel and failing to disclose that the loan involved negative amortization. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled on the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion regarding the TILA claim based on the notice of right to cancel but granted the motion as to the TILA disclosure violations and the UCL claim, granting plaintiffs leave to amend. The ruling applied the plausibility standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to assess the sufficiency of the allegations.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a medical malpractice claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act brought on behalf of a child born with severe brain injuries against a physician employed at a Native American health clinic, alleging negligence during labor and delivery at a California hospital in October 2002. The court found that the doctor breached the standard of care by failing to perform a timely cesarean section despite clear signs of fetal distress, prolonged labor induction, and risk factors, which caused the child's permanent disabilities including cerebral palsy. After reviewing extensive trial evidence on prenatal care, labor monitoring, and expert testimony, the court concluded the physician's delay in ordering surgery directly resulted in the injuries. It awarded the plaintiff over $4.7 million in damages for past and future medical care and related costs, subject to periodic payment rules under California law, while rejecting certain offsets for collateral sources.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

This case involves a class action brought by elderly and disabled Medi-Cal recipients against the California Department of Health Care Services challenging a state budget law that temporarily reduced Adult Day Health Care services from up to five days per week to a maximum of three. Plaintiffs alleged the cuts would increase their risk of hospitalization or institutionalization in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, preventing the reduction unless and until adequate alternative services or reasonable modifications are provided to avoid institutionalization. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on their claims, irreparable harm from the service cuts, and that the state's proposed alternatives were insufficient because they required separate applications, lacked guaranteed access, and had not been implemented.

civil rightshealthcare

The case involves a state prisoner who sued correctional officers and medical staff at Salinas Valley State Prison, alleging excessive force by one officer during an August 2004 incident, failure by others to intervene, deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs including a jaw fracture, and related state-law claims such as negligence, conspiracy, and assault. After removal to federal court, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the merits or, alternatively, to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and comply with the California Tort Claims Act. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, dismissing some claims against certain defendants for lack of sufficient allegations or failure to serve, while allowing others to proceed based on disputed facts regarding the use of force, the extent of any treatment delay, and exhaustion issues.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

In this case, California internet service providers sued Vistaprint, alleging that third-party emails advertising its products violated state law by using misleading subject lines that promised free gifts without disclosing shipping costs, in breach of California Business and Professions Code § 17529.5(a)(3). The court denied Vistaprint's motion to dismiss, ruling that the state claim was not preempted by the federal CAN-SPAM Act. The core reasoning was that the CAN-SPAM Act's savings clause for state laws addressing falsity or deception extends beyond common-law fraud to include misleading commercial email subject lines, consistent with FTC standards, and that the state statute does not require plaintiffs to plead reliance or damages.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case involved employees suing Wal-Mart for failing to include meal-period premium payments in the regular rate of pay used to calculate overtime compensation under the FLSA and California labor laws. The court granted Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss, ruling that such premiums are not required to be included in the overtime rate calculation. This decision was based on federal regulations that allow exclusion of premium payments mandated by statute, and interpretations equating meal premiums to overtime pay which are also excluded. The state claims were dismissed as derivative of the failed federal claim, and an additional claim about pay stubs was rejected based on the complaint's own exhibit.

labor & employmentprocedure