Thelton Eugene Henderson

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 The court granted the motion only as to the withdrawn conversion claim and denied it in all other respects, concluding that it had specific personal jurisdiction over Moser based on his contacts with California,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.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedure

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.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

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."

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

immigrationfederal power

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.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, homeowners Changseob Ahn and Sookhee Ahn refinanced their mortgage through broker Bona Financial Group after negotiating the loan entirely in Korean, but they received only English-language documents with no Korean translations. The Ahns counterclaimed that Bona violated California Civil Code section 1632, which requires translations for certain contracts negotiated in specified languages including Korean. The court granted the Ahns' motion for summary judgment on this issue, ruling that the statute applied because the negotiations occurred in Korean and the interpreter exception did not apply since no one served as an interpreter. The core reasoning was that the statute is triggered by the language of negotiation, not by a party's English fluency, and the parties stipulated that all discussions were in Korean.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved an Afghan asylee who filed an I-730 petition seeking derivative immigration benefits for his daughter to follow to join him in the United States, which was initially approved but later subject to revocation after a bone-age assessment at a U.S. embassy suggested she was over 21 years old at the time of the asylum application. Plaintiff sued the Secretary of Homeland Security and acting Deputy Director of USCIS under the Administrative Procedure Act, contending that the agency violated its own regulations by relying on adverse evidence (including a doctor's letter based on x-rays) without fully disclosing it to him for rebuttal. The court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied defendants', holding that the agency acted contrary to 8 C.F.R. § 103.2(b)(16) by not providing the underlying x-rays and related medical records as required when using undisclosed derogatory information to deny a petition.

immigrationprocedure

In this case, California residents who took out student loans from KeyBank to attend a helicopter flight school that later went bankrupt sued KeyBank and their loan servicer under California's Unfair Competition Law, seeking to block loan collection and credit reporting based on the FTC Holder Rule. The U.S. District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. The court's core reasoning was that federal banking regulations from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency preempt any state-law claims against national banks arising from the loans.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case is a federal habeas corpus petition by Laverne Johnson challenging his 1987 California state convictions for two counts of first-degree murder and arson, along with a multiple-murder special circumstance and death sentence. The district court addressed eight guilt-phase claims (F through L and W) previously rejected on the merits by the California Supreme Court. The court denied all claims, holding that the state decisions were consistent with clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, that certain claims were barred by Teague v. Lane, and that no constitutional violations occurred regarding issues such as Miranda waivers, jury instructions, or juror dismissal.

criminal lawprocedure

In Weir v. Curry, pro se petitioner Duane Weir, serving a seven-years-to-life sentence for a 1979 felony-murder conviction, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings' 2006 denial of parole at his seventeenth suitability hearing. The district court granted the petition, concluding there was no evidence that Weir currently posed an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released. The court reasoned that the Board's decision, upheld by the state superior court under the "some evidence" standard, was objectively unreasonable in light of Weir's nonviolent prior record, decades of positive prison conduct, favorable psychological evaluations, family support, and participation in rehabilitative programs. The court directed the Board to calculate a term and set an imminent release date pursuant to California Penal Code § 3041(a).

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose after plaintiff Michael Drumm was terminated from his sales director position at defendant Morningstar, Inc.; he sued alleging sexual orientation discrimination under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act along with related claims and failure to pay wages for accrued but unused sabbatical time under state labor law. The court dismissed the discrimination and most wage claims on summary judgment, but a jury found for Drumm on the remaining sabbatical wage claim and awarded damages plus waiting time penalties. On the post-trial motions, the court granted in part Drumm's Rule 59(e) motion to amend the judgment and his request for attorney's fees under California Labor Code section 218.5 as the prevailing party on the wage claim, while denying Morningstar's fee motion because the dismissed FEHA claims were not shown to be frivolous.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerns TPS holders from El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua who challenged DHS regulations requiring payment of an $80 biometrics services fee (in addition to other charges) upon TPS registration and re-registration, arguing that these fees exceed the $50 statutory cap in 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(c)(1)(B) and are unlawful even when biometrics data is not newly collected. Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, invalidation of the regulations, an injunction against excess fees, and refunds via a class action. The court denied the motion to dismiss in full, ruling that jurisdiction exists under the Little Tucker Act for claims against the United States not exceeding $10,000 and that venue is proper because the TPS statute requires continuous U.S. residence by applicants.

immigrationprocedurefederal power

This case involves plaintiffs who lost millions after merging their company with Netcentives in exchange for stock, alleging that defendant Credit Suisse First Boston (as financial advisor) and others made misrepresentations about Netcentives' business and financial condition around its 1999 IPO and the 2000 merger. After five prior amended complaints, multiple motions to dismiss, and years of litigation including delayed discovery, plaintiffs sought leave to file a sixth amended complaint to refine their claims based on newly reviewed documents. The court denied the motion, exercising its broad discretion after prior amendments. The core reasoning was that the proposed changes reflected undue delay, as key information had been available since at least 2005, and would cause unfair prejudice to defendants by introducing a radical shift in theory late in the case.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involved New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) filing a petition to vacate an arbitration award finding that its 2005 sick leave policy violated the collective bargaining agreement with the United Auto Workers Local 2244 by terminating employees on long-term medical leave before their allotted time expired, and directing the parties to resolve remedy issues before a different arbitrator. The district court denied the petition. The court reasoned that even assuming the Federal Arbitration Act applied alongside the Labor Management Relations Act, the arbitrator's award was within the scope of the parties' stipulated issues, addressed only matters both sides understood to be submitted, and did not exceed his authority or fail to draw its essence from the agreement.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves minority borrowers who obtained home mortgages from GreenPoint Mortgage Funding and allege that the company's Discretionary Pricing Policy allowed loan officers and brokers to impose subjective, non-risk-related charges that resulted in higher fees and interest rates for black and Hispanic borrowers than for similarly situated white borrowers. Plaintiffs brought claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act on behalf of a proposed class, asserting that the policy had an unlawful disparate impact based on race. The court denied GreenPoint's motion to dismiss in full, holding that the complaint adequately stated cognizable disparate impact claims under both statutes and that the claims were timely under the continuing violation doctrine because the policy constituted an ongoing practice.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute over whether a long-term disability plan could offset the plaintiff's benefits by the amount of Social Security dependent benefits paid to her adopted minor son due to her disability. The plaintiff, who had been receiving LTD benefits since 1990 with offsets for her own Social Security payments, challenged the plan's reduction of her benefits after her son began receiving payments under 42 U.S.C. § 402(d) in 2005. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), finding that the plan language allowing offsets for periodic benefits payable due to the employee's disability for "loss of time" did not apply to the son's benefits. The reasoning centered on interpreting "loss of time" as income replacement for the disabled employee, while dependent benefits under the Social Security Act function as support payments rather than replacement for the parent's lost earnings.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

In this putative class action, plaintiffs Kenneth and Sharan Stickrath alleged that Globalstar, Inc. violated California's unfair competition law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act by failing to disclose material information about the unreliable quality of its satellite telephone service and by making affirmative misrepresentations about its coverage and performance; the plaintiffs claimed they purchased the service in reliance on these statements and omissions for use while traveling at sea. Defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of standing due to insufficient allegations of causation and injury, as well as other deficiencies. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that plaintiffs had adequately pled standing and causation for their omission-based claims under the UCL and CLRA but had not sufficiently alleged reliance or injury for the misrepresentation claims, while also addressing pleading standards under Rule 9(b) and the effect of the service agreement's arbitration clause.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a residential developer that purchased land adjacent to a former Air Force base landfill and sued the United States for damages allegedly caused by migrating contamination, asserting claims under CERCLA for cost recovery, RCRA for injunctive relief, and state-law torts including nuisance, trespass, and negligence. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the RCRA and tort claims. It held that CERCLA section 113(h) stripped federal jurisdiction because the claims challenged the timing and implementation of an ongoing government-led cleanup under CERCLA authority, and that the discretionary-function exception to the FTCA independently barred the tort claims because the Corps' decisions on remedy scheduling involved policy judgments about public safety and resource allocation.

environmentfederal powerpropertytorts & liability

In this case, Ronald Mahtesian sued the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under FOIA to compel production of documents that had been partially withheld in response to a request submitted by his attorney, Barbara Rizzo, who referred to an unnamed client but did not identify Mahtesian. OPM moved to dismiss, arguing that Mahtesian lacked standing because his name did not appear in the original FOIA request or appeal. The court granted the motion, holding that only the person or entity explicitly identified in a FOIA request qualifies as the "complainant" with standing to bring an enforcement action in federal court. It relied on precedents such as McDonnell v. United States and Unigard Ins. Co. v. Dep’t of Treasury, which establish that an undisclosed or anonymous party has not administratively asserted a right to the records and therefore cannot sue. The dismissal was without prejudice.

procedure