The case concerns allegations by plaintiffs Huntair, Inc. and CLPK, LLC that their former employee Steve Moser, along with other defendants, participated in a scheme to divert business from plaintiffs to a competing entity called Reliant while Moser was still employed, leading to eight claims including breach of the duty of loyalty, fraud, RICO violations, Lanham Act violations, and unfair business practices under California law. Defendant Moser moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion only as to the withdrawn conversion claim and denied it in all other respects, concluding that it had specific personal jurisdiction over Moser based on his contacts with California, that venue was proper, and that the complaint sufficiently alleged the remaining claims at this stage. The court rejected Moser's arguments that his out-of-state conduct could not support jurisdiction or liability under the asserted causes of action.
This case concerns a mortgage loan that ING Bank extended to the Ahns in 2007 to refinance their California home, which was arranged through broker Bona Financial Group; the Ahns later defaulted on payments and alleged that Bona's failure to translate documents into Korean violated Civil Code section 1632, while ING sued for fraud, judicial foreclosure, and related relief. The court granted ING partial summary judgment, ruling that ING was not vicariously liable for the broker's statutory violation absent an agency or principal-broker relationship, and that ING was entitled to judicial foreclosure based on the undisputed default. It denied summary judgment to both sides on breach-of-contract and rescission issues, rejected the Ahns' affirmative defenses and other motions, and found no basis to impute the broker's misconduct to ING under theories such as nondelegable duty or willful blindness.
This case involves plaintiff Sherry Lynn Means, a certified nursing assistant at a San Francisco hospital, who sued the City and County of San Francisco alleging racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under Title VII, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the California Constitution after her 2008 termination. The termination followed incidents in which Means was accused of using vulgar language with patients, conducting an unauthorized inquiry into a sexual assault allegation, lying to supervisors, and other misconduct. The court granted the City's motion for summary judgment on the discrimination, retaliation, and related claims, finding that the City had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions and that Means failed to raise triable issues of pretext. However, the court denied summary judgment on the harassment claims under Title VII and FEHA, determining that factual disputes existed regarding whether Means was subjected to a hostile work environment based on race, including repeated use of derogatory Tagalog phrases referring to her as "black and ugly."
The case involved nationals from El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua who sued the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security, alleging that USCIS unlawfully charged them an $80 biometric services fee for TPS registration and re-registration, in violation of the $50 statutory cap on registration fees. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, finding that the fee was authorized by Congress. Specifically, the court reasoned that section 549 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2010 explicitly permits USCIS to collect fees for biometric services in addition to the capped registration fee, and this provision applies retroactively to 1998. The complaint was dismissed with leave to amend.
This case involves plaintiff Brent Beckway's claims against Lake County sheriff's deputies for excessive force and false arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arising from his October 2006 arrest following a dispute with a neighbor; Beckway also brought related state-law claims. After Beckway pleaded nolo contendere to resisting arrest in the underlying criminal case, the court addressed whether those claims were barred by Heck v. Humphrey or collateral estoppel based on the criminal proceedings. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings, having previously dismissed the false arrest claim on collateral estoppel grounds, while allowing amendment of one defendant's answer. The core reasoning centered on whether the criminal conviction necessarily implied the validity of the arrest and force used, with the court examining the preliminary hearing findings and the scope of the nolo plea.
This case involves a plaintiff who sued his employer's long-term disability plan and health care program under ERISA to recover benefits after his claim was denied. The defendants moved to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York based on a forum selection clause in the plan documents requiring suits to be filed there. The court granted the motion to transfer, holding that the forum selection clause was enforceable because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it was unreasonable due to lack of notice, conflict with federal law, or denial of his day in court. The court reasoned that such clauses are presumptively valid under federal law and that ERISA does not prohibit their enforcement in employee benefit plans.
