Lourdes Gillespie Baird

In this case, a state prisoner proceeding pro se sued several California prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment by exposing him to the hepatitis C virus and failing to treat the resulting illness. The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the plaintiff had not exhausted available prison administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the motion and dismissing the action without prejudice. The core reasoning was that the PLRA mandates exhaustion whenever some relief is possible through the grievance process, defendants met their burden to show non-exhaustion, and no exceptions such as futility applied because the plaintiff could have corrected defects in his appeals and pursued available remedies.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case is a class action lawsuit brought by participants in Syncor International Corporation’s ERISA-governed 401(k) plan, alleging that plan fiduciaries breached their duties by allowing investments in Syncor stock despite the company's involvement in an illegal international bribery scheme. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss various claims under ERISA. It denied the motion to dismiss or strike requests for monetary relief, allowed certain claims against Syncor to proceed while dismissing others against committee defendants, denied dismissal of one claim entirely, and dismissed other claims including co-fiduciary liability claims. The reasoning centered on the sufficiency of allegations regarding fiduciary status, prudence of investments, and disclosure obligations under ERISA, while finding some claims lacked adequate pleading against specific defendants.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company, as subrogee of shipper Unirex Corporation, suing carrier Yasutomi Warehousing & Distribution for reimbursement after a shipping container was stolen from Yasutomi's facility while awaiting delivery. Yasutomi moved for partial summary judgment to cap damages at the $0.50 per pound limit stated in its standard bill of lading and to preempt Atlantic's state-law claims under the Carmack Amendment. The court granted the motion, holding that the parties' repeated course of dealing gave Unirex adequate notice of the limit, that Unirex's separate insurance purchase confirmed its awareness, and that the Carmack Amendment governed the interstate/international shipment and displaced the state claims while enforcing the contractual cap.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns Perfect 10's claims against payment processors, age-verification services, and web hosts (IBill, Internet Key, CWIE, and CCBill) for copyright infringement of its images, along with RICO and state-law claims arising from those defendants' business relationships with adult-content websites. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions for partial summary judgment, holding that certain defendants qualify for DMCA § 512 safe harbors once they adopted compliant repeat-infringer policies and lack actual knowledge of specific infringements, while others are entitled to CDA § 230 immunity on state-law claims. The core reasoning examines whether each defendant's role constitutes a qualifying service provider, the timing and adequacy of DMCA compliance, and the absence of direct financial benefit tied to specific infringing activity.

business & regulatoryprocedurecriminal law

This case involves contractual disputes between Pegasus Satellite Television and DirecTV over distribution rights for satellite television programming under agreements with the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative (NRTC). Pegasus asserted claims including violation of California's unfair competition law and sought declaratory relief on issues such as the term of the DBS Agreement, rights of first refusal, revenue sharing, and exclusive distribution rights. DirecTV filed counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments on Pegasus's lack of certain rights under its member agreement and the agreement's termination terms. The court granted DirecTV's motion to dismiss Pegasus's remaining claims, granted Pegasus's motion to dismiss DirecTV's counterclaims on grounds including lack of standing under applicable state law, and deemed DirecTV's motion for reconsideration moot.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, petitioner Eric El, convicted in state court of second-degree murder and possession of cocaine base for sale, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his convictions on grounds that his First, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the trial court removed him from the courtroom during the prosecutor's opening argument after repeated interruptions. The magistrate judge's report found the petition to be mixed due to an unexhausted First Amendment claim, which petitioner then struck, leaving only exhausted claims for review. The district court conducted a de novo review, approved and adopted the report and recommendation as its findings and conclusions, and entered judgment denying the petition and dismissing the action with prejudice. The core reasoning centered on the state appellate court's factual findings regarding petitioner's disruptive conduct and the trial court's authority to maintain order, determining that no federal constitutional violation warranted habeas relief.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rightsfederal power

This case involved plaintiff Debra Laws suing Sony Music Entertainment for allegedly misappropriating her voice and name by sampling her 1981 recording "Very Special" in Jennifer Lopez's song "All I Have" without her consent, bringing claims under California law for statutory and common law misappropriation, unfair competition, and related remedies. The court granted Sony's motion for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the claims were preempted by the federal Copyright Act because they concerned the reproduction and distribution of a copyrighted sound recording, which falls within the subject matter of copyright and asserts equivalent rights, as the use targeted the recording rather than Laws's identity separately.

propertytorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Luis Sarmiento, a music executive, suing his former employer BMG Entertainment in California state court for breach of an employment agreement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and failure to pay wages after his 2001 termination. BMG removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) for improper venue, citing a forum selection clause in the 2001 Agreement (and prior agreements) that designated exclusive jurisdiction in New York state or federal courts. The court granted the motion to dismiss, enforcing the clause as prima facie valid under federal law. It found the clause was not unreasonable because there was no fraud or overreaching in its inclusion, litigating in New York would not deprive Sarmiento of his day in court despite any inconvenience, and no strong California public policy was contravened.

procedurelabor & employment

This case involves a contract dispute between the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative (NRTC) and DIRECTV over rights to distribute premium television services such as HBO and Showtime following a corporate merger. NRTC claimed that a 1994 amendment to their 1992 DBS Distribution Agreement gave it a contingent option to substitute those services, which it argued vested when DIRECTV gained access through the merger with USSB; DIRECTV countered that the right never vested and that liability limitations in the contract barred the damages sought. The court granted in part and denied in part DIRECTV's summary judgment motion. It held that the agreement's limitation of liability provisions generally apply to NRTC's claims, including under California Business and Professions Code § 17200, but that intentional breach could allow recovery of actual damages under a separate indemnification clause. On the substitution rights, the court denied summary judgment, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether DIRECTV itself acquired the distribution rights that would trigger NRTC's option.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Perfect 10 sued Cybernet Ventures for copyright infringement, trademark violations, and unfair business practices arising from Cybernet's Adult Check web service that hosted or linked to allegedly infringing images. The court granted Perfect 10's motion for a preliminary injunction after addressing numerous evidentiary objections, primarily concerning authentication of internet-sourced exhibits. It found sufficient prima facie admissibility for Perfect 10's evidence under Ninth Circuit standards and determined that third-party standing requirements were met for models who had complained about unauthorized use of their images. The ruling turned on Cybernet's ability to police content and the alignment of interests between Perfect 10 and affected rights holders.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Salim v. Lee, plaintiffs Steven Salim and Jesse Stagg sued Fox Kids defendants along with others, alleging that the animated series 'The 7th Portal' infringed their copyrighted project 'Jason and the Cybernauts' after being developed and distributed with Fox's assistance in translation, advertising, and online posting. The Fox Kids defendants moved to dismiss claims for violations of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, the Lanham Act, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and declaratory relief, primarily arguing Copyright Act preemption of the state-law claims and deficiency of the Lanham Act claim. The court granted dismissal of the unjust enrichment and constructive trust claims as preempted, and dismissed the § 17200 and declaratory relief claims except to the extent they rested on a theory of reverse passing off; it denied dismissal of the Lanham Act claim and the surviving portions of the others. The reasoning applied the two-part preemption test under the Copyright Act, finding most state claims equivalent to infringement without extra elements, while following Ninth Circuit precedent allowing a Lanham Act reverse passing off claim where bodily appropriation of the work was alleged.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case is a class action securities lawsuit against Guess?, Inc. and several of its executives alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) based on statements about the company's 1999 financial results, inventory valuation and accounting adjustments, distribution center operations, and retail growth plans after an admitted accounting issue and restatement. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court granted the motion because the complaint did not meet the PSLRA's requirements to plead the falsity of statements with particularity or facts creating a strong inference of scienter. The court dismissed with leave to amend within twenty days.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves Perfect 10's allegations that Cybernet Ventures, through its Adult Check website service, facilitated access to affiliated adult sites that infringed Perfect 10's copyrights in images and videos, misused its trademarks, and engaged in other unfair practices such as unauthorized use of models' images and celebrity head swaps. Cybernet moved to dismiss the claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, sought a more definite statement on certain allegations, and suggested lack of jurisdiction. The court denied the motion to dismiss in part, granted it in part, denied the request for a more definite statement, and rejected the jurisdictional challenge, reasoning that the complaint sufficiently alleged facts supporting cognizable claims under copyright, trademark, unfair competition, and right of publicity laws while applying the standard of presuming the truth of factual allegations and drawing inferences in the plaintiff's favor.

business & regulatoryprocedurepropertytorts & liability

This case involves a copyright infringement claim by Sylvia Fleener against Trinity Broadcasting Network and related entities, alleging that their book and film "The Omega Code" copied protected elements from her novel "The Omega Syndrome," both in the apocalyptic biblical prophecy genre. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact on whether defendants had access to the plaintiff's work and whether the works were substantially similar. The reasoning focused on specific shared plot points, themes, and settings, such as characters rising to power through technology and political unification, biblical code interpretations, and global events, which could allow a reasonable jury to find infringement under the extrinsic test for substantial similarity.

propertyprocedure

The case concerns the FTC's application to hold defendants Keith Gill and Richard Murkey in contempt of a November 1999 summary judgment order that permanently enjoined them from participating in credit repair services after finding violations of the Credit Repair Organization Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act. The court determined that Murkey continued to control and operate credit repair activities through the Credit Restoration Corporation of America, a nonprofit he founded, by servicing clients, making prohibited representations, and failing to fully disassociate from the business despite the injunction. It rejected arguments that Murkey had resigned or that CRCA operated independently, finding his ongoing involvement and the organization's activities breached the order's terms. Sanctions were imposed, including daily fines for noncompliance and requirements to report employment and business activities. The decision rested on evidence of continued credit repair operations and the absence of a stay pending appeal.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In this case, GlobeSpan sued its former employee O'Neill and his new employer Broadcom for misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, and breach of the duty of loyalty, alleging that O'Neill had retained confidential information and would inevitably disclose it while working for a competitor. Broadcom moved to dismiss the claims against it, arguing that the complaint relied solely on the inevitable disclosure doctrine without alleging actual misappropriation. The court, applying California law after a governmental interests analysis, granted the motion and dismissed the misappropriation and unfair competition claims against Broadcom. It reasoned that allegations of inevitable use or disclosure of trade secrets, without facts showing actual or threatened misappropriation by the new employer, fail to state a claim under California law, and the unfair competition claim mirrored the defective misappropriation allegations.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Entous v. Viacom International, Inc., the plaintiff alleged that Viacom used his submitted materials for a television show idea in their program "MTV: Making the Video," claiming copyright infringement and breach of an implied contract. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding the claims barred by the six-month statute of limitations specified in the submission release agreements signed by the plaintiff. The reasoning centered on evidence that the plaintiff became aware of Viacom's use or intended use by mid-1998 at the latest, making the January 2000 filing untimely under the contractual terms, which were enforceable and governed by New York law.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves an employee who alleged that her employer discriminated against her by terminating her group health benefits after a six-month leave of absence, in violation of California Labor Code § 132a. The employer moved to dismiss, arguing that the claim was preempted by ERISA, which governs the employee benefit plan. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the state law claim was preempted because it sought to regulate the administration of an ERISA plan by challenging the termination of benefits and seeking their reinstatement. The court also found that removal to federal court was proper due to the federal question raised by ERISA preemption.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

This case concerns a third-party indemnification claim filed by defendant Evan Martinez against Fleming Construction in a qui tam False Claims Act action alleging overbilling on city contracts for debris removal after the 1994 Northridge earthquake. The contracts between Martinez and Fleming had previously been the subject of a 1995 state court lawsuit that settled in 1996 with Martinez signing a broad release waiving all claims, known or unknown, related to the subcontracts in exchange for $15,000 and expressly waiving California Code of Civil Procedure § 1542. Fleming moved for summary judgment on the ground that the release barred the indemnification claim. The court granted the motion, finding no genuine dispute that the release was valid and applied to unknown claims such as indemnification, as Martinez had not shown fraud in its procurement and the language was unambiguous.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs Gardner and Bien Licensing Agency seeking declaratory relief against Nike over rights to use the copyrighted cartoon character MC Teach, originally licensed exclusively by Nike to Sony and later assigned by Sony to Gardner. Nike moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiffs lacked standing because the assignment was invalid without Nike's consent. The court analyzed 17 U.S.C. § 201(d) and determined that an exclusive licensee does not become an owner entitled to freely transfer rights under the 1976 Copyright Act; the statute limits the licensee's benefits to protections and remedies, unlike full ownership. As a result, Sony's assignment to Gardner was invalid, plaintiffs had no ownership interest, and the court granted Nike's motion for summary judgment while denying plaintiffs' cross-motion and dismissing the complaint.

propertybusiness & regulatory