Susan Yvonne Illston

This case concerns a former Kaiser employee's lawsuit challenging the denial of long-term disability benefits under an employer-sponsored plan administered by MetLife. The plaintiff claimed benefits based on physical injuries from workplace accidents, ongoing pain, and psychiatric conditions including depression and stress that prevented her from working after February 2005. MetLife approved benefits only for a 24-month period tied to the psychiatric impairment and denied further coverage, concluding that physical limitations did not render her unable to perform any occupation after that time. The court granted in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's motion, holding that the plan administrator's determinations were supported by the administrative record under abuse-of-discretion review.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case involves a wage and hour dispute in which current and former hourly employees of Service Corporation International alleged that the company failed to compensate them at the required rate for hours spent on community service work and on-call time, contrary to its assurances. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration for those employees who had signed valid arbitration agreements, finding that the Federal Arbitration Act required enforcement of such agreements where they covered the disputes. It granted plaintiff Bryant's request to dismiss his claims with prejudice after he conceded he had not signed an arbitration agreement. The court also granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to sever, allowing certain plaintiffs to remain joined for purposes of the arbitration motion. The decision was based on the existence of enforceable arbitration clauses and rules for permissive joinder under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned defendant Antonio Garcia's motion to suppress evidence, including a rifle and drugs, seized from his home under a search warrant obtained after his arrest for possessing 0.42 grams of cocaine in his car. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The affidavit supporting the warrant described the arrest, noted Garcia's gang ties and the area's gang activity, and included an officer's opinion that drug users commonly keep additional drugs and paraphernalia at home, but the issuing state judge later acknowledged the warrant may have lacked sufficient probable cause connecting the car possession to the residence. The opinion analyzed whether the affidavit established probable cause and whether the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied, comparing the facts to precedents involving small-quantity drug possession.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves plaintiff David Morse, a journalist covering a 2009 protest against university budget cuts at UC Berkeley, who alleges that police officers targeted him to seize photographs from his camera, resulting in his improper detention, arrest, use of excessive force, warrantless searches and seizures, inflated charges to hinder bail, and false statements in a warrant application. He sued the Regents, the UC Berkeley Police Department, the police chief, and several officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendments, as well as the Privacy Protection Act, seeking declaratory and equitable relief. On defendants' motion to dismiss, the court granted dismissal of all claims against the Regents and the Department but denied dismissal in part as to claims against individual officers, finding the complaint plausible under Twombly and Iqbal standards and that officers could potentially be held liable for excessive bail if they proximately caused inflated bail amounts through manipulation. The court also addressed but did not fully dismiss failure-to-train claims against the police chief, allowing them to proceed at the pleading stage based on prior incidents.

civil rightsfree speechprocedure

The case involves five states suing multiple domestic and foreign defendants for allegedly participating in a global price-fixing conspiracy regarding thin-film transistor liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) panels from 1999 to 2006, asserting claims under the Sherman and Clayton Acts as well as various state antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair trade practices laws on behalf of themselves, governmental entities, and residents. Defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds, including inadequate identification of unnamed state entities, unavailability of disgorgement as a remedy, insufficient pleading of assigned claims and purchases in specific states, and particular deficiencies in Arkansas and Missouri state-law claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard while analyzing each argument separately, such as requiring fair notice under Rule 8(a) for entity identification, striking certain remedy requests, and directing amendments for specific pleading issues related to state statutes and assigned purchases. Core reasoning drew on precedents like Twombly, Iqbal, and prior MDL rulings to assess whether allegations stated plausible claims and complied with procedural and substantive requirements under federal and state law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Ricky Gonzales, an inmate at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging his placement in administrative segregation based on validation as a Northern Structure gang associate. Prior to this federal complaint, Gonzales had pursued the same or closely related claims through petitions for writ of habeas corpus in the Del Norte County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court; the Del Norte court conducted an in camera review of the validation evidence, found it sufficient under due process standards, and denied relief, with the higher courts summarily denying the subsequent petitions. The federal district court ordered Gonzales to show cause why the action should not be dismissed under res judicata and collateral estoppel and, after considering his filings, dismissed the complaint. The core reasoning was that the state courts had already fully litigated and resolved the validity of the gang validation evidence and related constitutional claims, precluding relitigation of the same issues in federal court.

civil rightsprocedurecriminal law

This case involves Dell Inc. suing numerous domestic and foreign defendants for allegedly participating in a global price-fixing conspiracy regarding TFT-LCD panels, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as well as state antitrust and unfair competition laws from North Carolina, Nevada, and Tennessee, and breach of contract claims under Master Purchase Agreements with certain defendants. The court addressed defendants' motion to dismiss, which challenged subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA), the sufficiency of state law claims, and proximate cause for the contract claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that it had jurisdiction over the federal antitrust claims because Dell alleged domestic negotiations and purchases that established a direct U.S. connection, allowing related state claims to proceed under choice-of-law provisions, and finding the breach of contract allegations sufficient to plead proximate cause based on the defendants' alleged violations of antitrust laws.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns the legality of a debt reduction program run by Freedom Debt Relief and related Network defendants, in which clients transfer funds to special purpose accounts for negotiated settlements of debts, with fees deducted from those accounts. Plaintiffs allege that defendants acted as unlicensed proraters in violation of California Financial Code provisions, supporting claims for unfair competition, violations of the federal Credit Repair Organization Act and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and negligence. The court denied both parties' cross-motions for summary judgment on whether defendants qualify as proraters. It found triable issues of material fact regarding constructive possession or control of client funds, distinguishing the facts from prior cases like Nationwide and noting that the California Department of Corporations' withdrawal of a desist order (while requiring fines and a refund fund) did not resolve the question either way.

business & regulatory

The case involved a passenger of Korean descent suing Virgin America for alleged racial discrimination and mistreatment by a flight attendant during a Seattle to San Francisco flight, including claims that she was yelled at and physically struck for using a first-class restroom while a Caucasian passenger was not. The plaintiff asserted seven causes of action, such as negligence, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and federal and state discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VI, and the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The court granted in part and denied in part the airline's motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the negligent hiring, Title VI, and Unruh Act claims (with leave to amend the latter to allege events occurred in California) while allowing the remaining claims to proceed. The core reasoning centered on federal preemption under the Federal Aviation Act applying only to certain categories of claims where pervasive regulation exists, the Unruh Act's limited territorial scope, and the sufficiency of factual allegations under pleading standards for the surviving claims.

civil rightstorts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

This case involved the EPA's lawsuit against PG&E alleging violations of the Clean Air Act's New Source Review requirements in the construction and operation of the Gateway Generating Station power plant near Antioch, California, after an earlier permit had expired. The parties proposed a second amended consent decree to settle the claims, which was opposed by intervenor Communities for a Better Environment, while Wild Equity Institute sought to intervene to raise claims under the Endangered Species Act, arguing that entry of the decree required EPA consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding impacts on the endangered Lange's Metalmark butterfly. The court denied Wild Equity Institute's motion to intervene and granted the motion to enter the proposed consent decree. The core reasoning centered on the statutory framework of the Clean Air Act's PSD and NSR programs, including California's SIP and delegated permitting authority, the determination that the consent decree did not constitute an agency action triggering ESA consultation requirements, and the availability of alternative avenues for addressing environmental concerns such as through state proceedings.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Macias v. Excel Building Services LLC, plaintiff Susana Macias, a former janitorial supervisor, sued her employer for violations of Title VII, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and related California laws, alleging pregnancy discrimination, denial of accommodations and leave, and unpaid overtime wages after her termination in 2010. Excel moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement Macias had signed, which was contained in an employee handbook. The district court denied the motion, finding the agreement procedurally unconscionable as a contract of adhesion with unequal bargaining power and substantively unconscionable due to lack of mutuality, restrictions on remedies and discovery, and other one-sided provisions that could not be severed without rewriting the contract. The court therefore declined to enforce the arbitration clause and allowed the case to proceed in federal court.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a pro se plaintiff who sued Certegy Check Services, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act after discovering a derogatory mark on his credit report from a closed account; he claimed the defendant failed to respond to a validation request, inaccurately represented the debt, and engaged in unfair practices by requesting a fee to remove the mark. The plaintiff also referenced possible claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint without leave to amend. The core reasoning was that the allegations failed to state plausible claims under the FDCPA, and any FCRA claims were not viable because the plaintiff had not first disputed the mark with a credit reporting agency to trigger the furnisher's duties under the statute that allow for a private right of action.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns plaintiff Edmundo Rombeiro's ERISA claims against his former employer Next Level Communications, the associated long-term disability plan, and insurers including Unum Life Insurance Company of America for allegedly wrongful denial of disability benefits after he became disabled. Plaintiff filed suit in state court in 2002, which was removed to federal court, consolidated in multidistrict litigation, and remanded; he ultimately asserted claims for benefits, penalties for procedural violations, and equitable relief. The court addressed pending motions for summary judgment by the Next Level and Unum defendants, which raised issues including releases of claims, compliance with ERISA notice requirements, and the effect of regulatory settlement agreements, as well as plaintiff's motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

This case is a class action brought by borrowers Gregory Jordan and Eli and Josephina Goldhaber against Paul Financial and subsequent purchasers of their loans, including RBS Financial Products, concerning option adjustable-rate mortgages originated in 2005. The plaintiffs alleged that the loan documents and disclosures improperly used low teaser rates to calculate initial payments while failing to clearly state that negative amortization was certain to occur and that interest rates would increase, violating federal Truth in Lending Act requirements and supporting state-law claims for fraudulent omissions. Defendant RBS moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, allowing claims against RBS to proceed on aiding-and-abetting and joint-venture theories while dismissing others on grounds including TILA preemption and the sufficiency of disclosures.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case is a class action by an elderly plaintiff against American National Insurance Company alleging that the company used unfair and deceptive sales practices when marketing deferred annuities to seniors in California, in violation of the state's Unfair Competition Law, by failing to make required disclosures about surrender charges, market value adjustments, and other risks under specific Insurance Code provisions. The court ruled on cross-motions for partial summary judgment concerning ANICO's compliance with Insurance Code sections on disclosures to persons over 65. It granted the motions in part and denied them in part, holding that the policy's surrender charge schedule satisfied statutory requirements but that the market value adjustment was not properly disclosed because it operated like an undisclosed surrender charge or penalty. The reasoning focused on statutory text defining surrender charges, the practical effect of the MVA formula, and the absence of required senior-citizen disclosures.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves the SEC's efforts to enforce an administrative disgorgement order against Gordon Brent Pierce, a Canadian citizen, stemming from two administrative proceedings alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934 through unregistered sales of Lexington Resources stock. Pierce filed a federal action seeking a preliminary injunction and stay to halt the SEC's new administrative proceeding and related disgorgement claims, while the SEC sought court enforcement of an existing $2 million-plus disgorgement order from the first proceeding. The court dismissed Pierce's federal case for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies, finding that challenges to the new proceeding belong in the administrative forum first. It granted the SEC's enforcement application, holding that the validity of the prior disgorgement order was not contested and remained enforceable regardless of the outcome of the new proceeding.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, an inmate serving a seven-years-to-life sentence for a 1979 kidnapping conviction challenged the Board of Parole Hearings' 2004 denial of parole via a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court granted the petition, finding that the Board's unsuitability determination lacked any evidentiary support and that both the Board and state court had unreasonably applied California's "some evidence" standard. The court noted extensive positive psychological evaluations, the petitioner's age and maturity, lack of recent violent infractions, and the co-defendant's earlier release, concluding there was no basis to find the inmate posed a current danger to society. As a remedy, the court ordered the Board to set a release date within thirty days rather than remanding for further hearings.

criminal lawprocedure

In Robinson v. HSBC Bank USA, homeowners sued HSBC Bank for using a photograph of their distinctive Victorian house in a full-page mortgage advertisement inserted in the San Francisco Chronicle without their consent or knowledge. The plaintiffs, who owned their home free of any mortgage, alleged claims including violation of their right of publicity under California Civil Code section 3344, trade libel, unjust enrichment, false advertising under the FAL, violations of the CLRA, and the UCL. The court granted HSBC's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint with prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs failed to state any plausible claim as a matter of law. The core reasoning was that the ad did not appropriate the plaintiffs' personal identity or likeness for commercial purposes in a manner supporting a publicity right claim, that the plaintiffs were not consumers who engaged in any transaction with HSBC as required for the CLRA and related claims, and that they lacked standing or injury to pursue the UCL or FAL claims.

propertycivil rightsbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

In this case, USA Technologies sued an anonymous defendant posting as 'Stokklerk' on Yahoo! message boards, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Pennsylvania common law defamation based on critical statements about the company's officers, operations, and stock performance. USAT subpoenaed Yahoo! in the Northern District of California for the defendant's IP address to reveal his identity after filing the suit in Pennsylvania. The defendant moved to quash the subpoena. The court granted the motion, finding that the posts consisted of protected opinions and hyperbolic language rather than verifiable false statements of fact, so USAT failed to establish a prima facie defamation claim. Without a viable underlying claim, the court determined there was no basis to compel disclosure of the anonymous speaker's identity.

free speechtorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a class action lawsuit brought by investors against Century Aluminum Company, its officers and directors, and underwriters, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiffs claimed that Century issued false and misleading financial statements in its November 2008 Form 10-Q and January 2009 secondary offering prospectus by misclassifying cash flows from a transaction terminating hedging contracts with Glencore as operating activities rather than financing activities, thereby overstating the company's liquidity; they further alleged that a March 2009 restatement revealed the truth, causing a significant stock price drop. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the first amended complaint in full, while granting plaintiffs leave to amend, and denied as moot a related motion to strike. The decision rested on findings that plaintiffs lacked standing under certain provisions, such as Section 12 of the Securities Act due to failure to trace share purchases, along with other pleading deficiencies not fully detailed in the excerpt but addressed in the full opinion.

business & regulatoryprocedure