District Court, E.D. California — appointed by William Jefferson Clinton
General Security Services Corp. v. County of Fresno
District Court, E.D. California · 2011-09-02 · cited 13×
This case involves a contractual dispute between General Security Services Corp. (GSS), a Minnesota company, and the County of Fresno over a 2004 agreement for electronic monitoring services for parolees and probationers. After the County terminated the contract in 2009, GSS invoiced the County for approximately $246,000 in charges related to damaged or missing equipment, but the County repeatedly denied payment on various grounds, leading GSS to file suit in federal court under diversity jurisdiction for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and conversion. The County moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), and the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The core reasoning focused on whether GSS's pre-suit demand letter and subsequent filings satisfied the California Government Claims Act's notice and timeliness requirements, concluding that the letter could constitute a valid claim for contract-related causes of action but that the conversion claim was untimely.
business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability
Willis v. Mullins
District Court, E.D. California · 2011-08-16 · cited 4×
This case involves a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by Gary Willis against several law enforcement officers following a 1996 motel room search in Bakersfield, California. Officers entered based on a mistaken belief from a parole roster that Willis was on parole, detained him, searched a briefcase with consent from another occupant, and arrested both individuals after finding drugs and paraphernalia; Willis was convicted but the California Supreme Court later suppressed the evidence and overturned the conviction. The court here denied Willis's motion for reconsideration and ruled on the officers' summary adjudication motions by finding that the initial entry violated the Fourth Amendment (with qualified immunity unresolved), that the detention during the parole status check was unconstitutional but protected by qualified immunity, and that the briefcase search, arrest, and lack of malicious prosecution did not violate constitutional rights. The decisions rested on prior appellate rulings regarding the entry and on the validity of the co-occupant's consent to the briefcase search.
criminal lawcivil rights
Jablonsky v. Sierra Kings Healthcare District
District Court, E.D. California · 2011-07-15
This case involves a physician suing a hospital district under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the summary suspension of his medical staff privileges in 1997 violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The court vacated its prior dismissal of the case under Rule 60(b)(4) but granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and re-entered judgment in the defendant's favor. It reasoned that the plaintiff received constitutionally adequate notice and an opportunity to respond shortly after the suspension, satisfying due process under precedents like Loudermill, and that prior state court proceedings had upheld the hospital's actions, meaning there was no compensable erroneous deprivation. The court concluded there were no remaining issues of material fact on the constitutional claim.
civil rightsprocedure
Jp Ex Rel. Balderas v. City of Porterville
District Court, E.D. California · 2011-07-06 · cited 8×
This case arose from the fatal shooting of Eusebio Prieto by City of Porterville police officers after Prieto drove erratically at high speed, exited his vehicle armed with a screwdriver, lunged at an officer while ignoring commands, repeatedly stabbed himself in the neck, and advanced toward a building occupied by civilians while declaring that officers would have to shoot him. Relatives of Prieto sued the city and officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged Fourth Amendment excessive force and Fourteenth Amendment violations, along with Monell liability, and state-law claims for negligence and battery. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that the officers' use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances because Prieto posed an immediate threat to officers and others, continued to advance despite commands and the availability of less-lethal options, and the officers were not required to delay action when facing imminent harm. Because no constitutional violation occurred, the Monell claim failed, and the state tort claims were also dismissed as the officers' conduct was justified.
civil rightsproceduretorts & liability
Altman v. HO SPORTS CO., INC.
District Court, E.D. California · 2011-05-18 · cited 10×
This case is a state-law products liability action in which plaintiff Jeffrey Altman sued defendant HO Sports Co. for injuries allegedly caused by the Atlas wakeboard boot/binding during a wakeboarding accident. Altman claimed design defects and failure to warn regarding the boot's release characteristics and risks to the lower extremities. HO Sports moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that inherent risks of wakeboarding, the adequacy of existing warnings, and the absence of evidence supporting certain defect theories warranted partial dismissal while allowing other claims to proceed.
torts & liability
Coble v. DeRosia
District Court, E.D. California · 2011-05-16 · cited 12×
In this case, plaintiff Lisa Coble sued her former employer, the City of Delano, and a city official for sex and pregnancy discrimination after her termination, but she had filed for bankruptcy without disclosing the claims on her schedules. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Coble lacked standing because the claims belonged to the bankruptcy estate and that judicial estoppel barred the claims. The court granted the motion in part as to Coble, holding that she had no standing since the claims became assets of the bankruptcy estate upon filing and only the trustee could pursue them. The court denied the motion as to bankruptcy trustee Randell Parker, ruling that judicial estoppel did not apply to him because he had not taken any inconsistent position regarding the claims and was the real party in interest. The core reasoning centered on Article III standing requirements and the principle that a debtor's post-petition conduct cannot be attributed to the trustee for estoppel purposes.
labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure