William Austin Ingram

This case involves a commercial dispute between LaPine Technology Corp. and Kyocera Corp. arising from agreements to design, finance, manufacture, and license 3.5-inch disk drive products, which was resolved through arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce. LaPine petitioned the court to confirm the arbitration awards in its favor, while Kyocera sought to vacate, modify, or correct the awards on grounds including alleged procedural irregularities and undue means. The court granted confirmation of the awards and denied Kyocera's motion, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act limits judicial review of arbitration awards and that Kyocera had not established any statutory basis for vacatur. The court further noted that the parties' contractual provision for expanded judicial review could not enlarge the court's authority beyond the Act's constraints.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case was a civil refund action in which plaintiff Michael Howard challenged an IRS assessment of a responsible person penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 for unpaid employment taxes of Seybold Group, Inc. The court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the assessment was untimely. The core reasoning was that the three-year limitations period of 26 U.S.C. § 6501(a) applies to § 6672 penalties and began to run when the employer's quarterly returns were filed in 1988; the IRS's first waiver form was ineffective because it was never signed by the agency, and the second waiver did not extend the period far enough to cover the 1992 assessment.

taxesprocedure

In this case, Hispanic residents of Monterey County sued under the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, challenging the county's supervisorial district plans as lacking required Section 5 preclearance and diluting minority voting strength. Plaintiffs sought to prevent the court from considering certain alternative redistricting plans submitted by intervenors and to have their own Avila plan installed temporarily. The court held that a legislature's endorsement of a litigant's redistricting plan creates a substantial question under Section 5 and ruled that a court should grant the legislature limited additional time to develop its own plan when it has not had adequate opportunity to address key factors.

electionscivil rights

This case involved a constitutional challenge by non-union county employees to the procedures used by their union and employer for calculating and collecting fair-share fees from nonmembers under collective bargaining agreements. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that the union's notices, financial disclosures, inclusion of certain expenses as chargeable, and certified mail requirements failed to meet constitutional standards, while rejecting claims about uniform fee amounts. It awarded judgment on liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, referred damages to arbitration, and enjoined further fee collections until adequate procedures consistent with Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass’n, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and related precedents were implemented. The reasoning centered on the requirements for audited statements separating chargeable and nonchargeable expenses, opportunities to object with escrow of disputed amounts, and prompt arbitration to balance labor peace with First Amendment protections against compelled subsidization of non-germane activities.

labor & employmentfree speechcivil rights

This case involved a union representing INS employees challenging the agency's drug testing program, which included random testing for certain positions, reasonable suspicion testing, and post-accident or unsafe practice testing under its Drug Free Workplace plan. The court granted partial summary judgment to each side, permitting random testing for positions with a demonstrated nexus to public safety, national security, or drug interdiction (such as firefighters, nurses, and certain vehicle operators) while enjoining it for other listed roles like personnel specialists and financial handlers; it also enjoined reasonable suspicion testing for non-safety-sensitive positions and accident testing due to overly discretionary standards. The reasoning relied on Fourth Amendment precedents requiring a direct connection between job duties and the risk of harm or drug use to justify testing, drawing from similar cases involving other federal agencies, while balancing government interests against employee privacy expectations.

labor & employmentfederal powercivil rights

The case involved labor unions and individual Veterans Administration employees challenging the constitutionality of various urinalysis drug testing components in the VA's Drug Free Workplace Plan, adopted under Executive Order 12564, specifically targeting random testing, reasonable-suspicion testing, post-accident testing, and follow-up testing for positions alleged to be safety-sensitive. The district court granted partial summary judgment, permanently enjoining random testing for employees in certain lower-tier safety-sensitive categories (except automotive mechanics and motor vehicle operators), reasonable-suspicion testing for non-safety-sensitive positions, and post-accident testing as provided in the Plan, while upholding random testing for higher-tier safety-sensitive positions and follow-up testing. The rulings turned on whether the tested positions involved substantial safety risks justifying the intrusions on employee privacy, with the court dissolving prior preliminary injunctions only for the upheld categories. Defendants prevailed on claims under the Civil Service Reform Act.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfederal power

The case concerned a dispute between a real estate development partnership and a local water utility over the construction of a water system for a housing project, which included state law claims and a federal RICO claim. After the plaintiff filed suit in state court and the defendants received a copy of the complaint, the defendants removed the action to federal court more than 30 days later. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, holding that the notice of removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) because the 30-day removal period begins upon receipt of the initial pleading through service or otherwise. The court declined to address the pending motion to dismiss, citing lack of jurisdiction and the state court's superior position to evaluate state law claims.

procedure

This case involved Intel's application for a permanent injunction against Advanced Micro Devices, claiming trademark rights in the term "386" for microprocessors and alleging infringement. The court ruled that Intel was not entitled to injunctive relief because the combination "386" is generic and thus not entitled to trademark protection. The decision rested on findings that the relevant purchasing group consists of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), who buy microprocessors directly for incorporation into products, rather than end users; that Intel failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that "386" is not generic among that group; and that industry practice, sales channels, and survey evidence demonstrated generic usage interchangeable with part numbers like 80386. As a result, there could be no infringement.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by insurer American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Co. against its insured, Bay Area Cab Lease, Inc., seeking a ruling that its Owner’s, Landlord’s & Tenant’s Liability policy provided no coverage for a civil suit arising from a cab driver’s sexual molestation of a child in a school parking lot. The court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment, holding that American Empire had no duty to defend or indemnify the cab company and was entitled to reimbursement of defense costs. The policy language limited coverage to “accidents” arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of the insured premises; the assault occurred off-site, and the alleged negligent hiring and supervision by the company was not itself an “accident” covered by this type of premises-based policy. The court distinguished the narrower OL&T policy from broader liability policies and rejected arguments that negligent hiring constituted a covered occurrence.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This securities fraud class action against 3Com and its officers alleged that the company disseminated false and misleading financial statements and other public statements that overstated earnings and assets by failing to timely write down unprofitable inventory, in violation of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and related state claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6). It denied dismissal of the core fraud claims, finding that group pleading of corporate officers satisfied particularity requirements and that the complaint adequately alleged misrepresentations grounded in fraud. The court granted dismissal of the negligent misrepresentation claim due to failure to allege individual reliance and of the insider trading claim with prejudice for lack of contemporaneous trading allegations.

business & regulatory

This case involved a union representing Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) employees challenging the Department of Justice and INS drug-testing plans that authorized random urinalysis and post-accident testing for thousands of federal workers in designated positions. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that the testing violated the Fourth Amendment. The court granted the motion, finding that the urinalysis constituted a search and that the government's interests in safety and security did not sufficiently outweigh employees' privacy expectations for the broad range of positions covered by random testing or the criteria for post-accident testing. The decision rested on an assessment that the plans lacked adequate justification under existing Fourth Amendment precedents for suspicionless testing.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) seeking to enforce an investigative subpoena against defendant Jess A. Rodrigues, Chairman of a federally insured savings and loan, for his personal federal tax returns from 1983 to 1987. The FSLIC was investigating potential violations of conflict-of-interest rules and the National Housing Act related to loans made by the institution. Rodrigues resisted the subpoena by asserting his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court ordered compliance, holding that the tax returns qualified as required records under the exception to the privilege because they were mandated by federal law for regulatory purposes, were customarily maintained by taxpayers, and possessed public aspects.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In Lerma v. United States, plaintiffs sued the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries from a 1985 motorcycle accident involving a tractor-trailer that was transporting mail under a contract between the U.S. Postal Service and Hunt Transportation Corporation. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). The ruling was based on the determination that neither Hunt nor its employee driver qualified as a federal employee under the FTCA, which waives sovereign immunity only for acts of government employees and expressly excludes contractors. The court applied the Supreme Court's control test from Logue and Orleans, finding that the government lacked authority to supervise the detailed daily operations of the contractor.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

The case involved a defendant indicted on federal assault charges under 18 U.S.C. § 113 for alleged offenses at Fort Ord, a federal military installation, including two counts of assault resulting in serious bodily injury. The defendant moved to dismiss those counts, arguing that the term 'serious bodily injury' was unconstitutionally vague, that the indictment lacked factual specificity on the injury element, and that it failed to allege the required intent. The court denied the motion, holding that the statutory phrase has a plain and commonly understood meaning that provides fair notice, consistent with dictionary definitions, judicial interpretations in other contexts, and common-law traditions, and that the indictment was otherwise sufficient under applicable standards.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Intel Corporation's lawsuit against its insurer, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, after Hartford denied coverage for costs Intel incurred cleaning up a chemical leak from an underground tank in 1981. Intel filed claims in state court under California law plus a federal civil RICO claim, and the case was removed to federal district court. The court denied Intel's motion to remand and dismissed the entire action without prejudice, reasoning that under pre-1986 law, federal removal jurisdiction was derivative of the state court's jurisdiction; because RICO claims fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction, the state court lacked authority over them, so the federal court could not acquire jurisdiction upon removal and had to dismiss.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned debtors who filed a voluntary Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, had their plan confirmed by the bankruptcy court, and then converted the proceeding to Chapter 7, leaving $894.08 in undistributed post-filing earnings that the Chapter 13 trustee had transferred to the Chapter 7 trustee. The district court reviewed the bankruptcy court's order directing payment of certain funds and held that the debtors were entitled to the undistributed amount. The court reasoned that the funds became part of the Chapter 13 estate under 11 U.S.C. § 1306(a)(2) as earnings from services performed after filing but before conversion, that confirmation of the plan vested ownership of estate property in the debtors under § 1327(b), and that such post-commencement earnings are excluded from the Chapter 7 estate under § 541. The district court therefore remanded the matter to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings consistent with its conclusions.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Rooke v. City of Scotts Valley, property owners sued the city in federal court for damages, alleging that two land-use ordinances regulating mobile home parks amounted to an unconstitutional regulatory taking and violated federal civil rights laws. The city moved to stay the federal case under the Pullman abstention doctrine due to parallel state-court litigation challenging the same ordinances. The district court granted the stay after finding that all three requirements for abstention were met: land-use regulation is a sensitive area of social policy, state-court rulings could eliminate or narrow the federal constitutional questions, and the relevant state-law issues were unsettled. The court also concluded that any delay would not cause undue hardship because, if the ordinances were invalidated, the owners could immediately resume full use of their property.

propertycivil rightsfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

In Crouch v. United States, the plaintiff sought a refund of self-employment taxes paid in 1981-1983 after turning 62, vesting his Social Security benefits, and making an unconditional gift of those benefits to the trust fund. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The ruling held that Social Security taxes imposed by 26 U.S.C. § 1401 on self-employment income remain mandatory regardless of whether the taxpayer waives or declines benefits. This conclusion followed from Supreme Court precedent in United States v. Lee, which stressed that mandatory contributions are essential to the fiscal integrity of the system, along with consistent lower court decisions confirming that tax liability is absolute and not conditioned on eligibility for or acceptance of benefits.

taxesfederal power

This shareholder derivative action was brought on behalf of National Semiconductor Corporation against its board members and officers, centering on two incidents: the mailing of falsified microcircuit testing data to the government and the theft of trade secrets from IBM, for which the company paid a settlement. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the demand requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1, finding that the April 19, 1985 demand letter regarding the trade secret theft was sufficient, and also denied dismissal of the RICO claim based on the testing fraud allegations. The court granted dismissal with leave to amend, however, to require the plaintiff to allege the board's formal denial of the demand and facts showing why that refusal was wrongful, while noting that an earlier demand on the testing fraud issue could be treated as rejected due to the board's delay.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute between NEC Corporation and Intel Corporation over whether Intel held valid copyrights in the microcode for its 8086/8088 microprocessors and whether NEC's similar V20-V50 microcode infringed those copyrights. NEC sought a declaratory judgment that the copyrights were invalid or not infringed, while Intel counterclaimed for infringement. The court held that Intel possessed good and valid copyrights in the microcode, as the works qualified as copyrightable computer programs under the Copyright Act, the presumption of validity from registration was not overcome, and Intel had properly addressed any notice omissions. The decision rested on findings that the microprograms were sets of instructions to achieve specific results in interpreting the macroinstruction set, without any forfeiture of protection.

business & regulatory