Anthony W. Ishii

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case arose from a contract dispute initially filed as a small claims action in Fresno County Superior Court, which was appealed and referred to arbitration before the American Arbitration Association. Defendants removed the matter to federal court, asserting that a proposed amended arbitration demand raised federal antitrust claims providing federal question jurisdiction. The court granted plaintiff's motion to remand the action to state court, concluding that there was no proper basis for removal and that the notice of removal had been filed untimely. Plaintiff's request for attorney fees and costs was denied on the ground that the removal attempt was not patently frivolous. The ruling rested on review of federal removal statutes, timeliness rules, and the absence of any objections to the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves Dr. Joseph Parks, a 67-year-old African-American professor at California State University-Fresno, who sued the Board of Trustees of the California State University and several administrators under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Parks alleged that student complaints of harassment and discrimination led to an investigation and his placement on paid administrative suspension, which he claimed constituted unlawful discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. It determined there were no genuine disputes of material fact, as the suspension was a non-disciplinary measure taken with pay to facilitate the investigation and prevent further issues, and Parks failed to present evidence showing violations of the statutes.

civil rightslabor & employment

In Hardin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a long-time Wal-Mart employee and his wife sued the company and a supervisor, asserting fifteen causes of action that included employment discrimination under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, violations of the Business and Professions Code and Civil Code related to disabled parking access, and various tort and contract claims arising from alleged workplace mistreatment. After the case was removed to federal court and the complaint was amended multiple times, the defendants moved to dismiss several claims for failure to state a claim and lack of administrative exhaustion, and to strike certain allegations. The court granted the motion to dismiss in part, dismissing all claims against the individual supervisor, all claims brought by the wife, and four specific causes of action (fraudulent/negligent misrepresentation, assault, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, and elder abuse) without leave to amend, while denying the motion to strike and allowing other claims to proceed. The rulings rested on the plaintiffs' failure to plead sufficient facts or meet procedural prerequisites under standards set forth in cases such as Twombly and Iqbal.

labor & employmentcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute in which plaintiffs, who operate a livestock business, sued their insurers for refusing to cover the death of cattle and to defend them against a third-party claim arising from the loss. The plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory relief under a farm-owners policy that included property coverage for livestock and liability coverage for farm operations. The court granted the insurers' motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part, finding that certain first-party property claims were barred by policy exclusions for custom feeding and by the one-year limitations period, while issues remained regarding the duty to defend the third-party liability claim under the livestock operations endorsement. The decision rested on interpretations of the policy language, including definitions of covered causes of loss, exclusions for contractual liability and custom feeding, and the absence of required endorsements.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case involves a dispute between Kim-C1, LLC and Valent Biosciences Corp. over a 1999 licensing agreement granting Valent exclusive rights to market an agricultural chemical called CPPU on grapes in the U.S., subject to minimum purchase requirements. After two arbitrations before the same arbitrator, Kim prevailed on most issues and was awarded damages for Valent's failure to meet purchase minimums in 2008 and 2009, with the 2010 award declaring Kim the prevailing party. Kim petitioned to confirm the 2010 award under the Federal Arbitration Act, while Valent moved to vacate it, arguing the arbitrator exceeded his authority by improperly interpreting a prior 2008 award and the agreement's exclusivity provisions. The court held that the FAA, not Illinois law, governs review of the award because the contract's choice-of-law clause did not clearly intend to displace federal arbitration rules, and the arbitrator acted within his powers by reasonably construing the prior award's limited options and finding Valent liable for lost profits. Accordingly, the court denied Valent's motion and confirmed the arbitration award.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a homeowner who obtained a mortgage, fell behind on payments, made several modified monthly payments pursuant to an alleged oral agreement with the loan servicer, and then faced foreclosure proceedings. The plaintiff brought eleven causes of action, including breach of oral contract, promissory estoppel, emotional distress claims, and violations of RESPA and California Civil Code section 2923.6. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, dismissing the section 2923.6 claim without leave to amend on the ground that the statute creates no private right of action, and dismissing the remaining claims with leave to amend because the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to state plausible claims under applicable pleading standards.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a former employee of a private prison operator who sued under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act after being terminated due to work restrictions from carpal tunnel syndrome surgeries, alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy, along with claims for punitive damages. The defendant moved to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and to strike the punitive damages requests. The court granted the motion to dismiss the discrimination and retaliation claims as well as all punitive damages claims, finding the allegations insufficient to state those causes of action, but denied dismissal of the accommodation-related claims and the wrongful termination claim. Leave to amend was granted on the dismissed claims. The rulings turned on whether the complaint adequately alleged the plaintiff could perform essential job functions, made a request for accommodation, and showed a causal link for retaliation.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a dispute over the proceeds of a $500,000 life insurance policy on Matthew Brockett after his death shortly before his divorce from Rachel Brockett became final. State Farm interpleaded the funds in federal court, pitting Rachel Brockett's claim to $380,000 under the original beneficiary designation against the Brockett Children's claim to the full amount based on an unmailed change-of-beneficiary form Matthew had completed. The court granted Rachel Brockett's motion for summary judgment, ruling that under California law the beneficiary change was ineffective because Matthew had not mailed the form or otherwise provided written notice to the insurer before his death, even though the marital settlement agreement allowed either spouse to remain a beneficiary and evidence suggested he intended to remove Rachel.

family lawproperty

This case is an ADEA lawsuit brought by the EEOC on behalf of two older applicants, Rex (age 60) and Carlberg (age 62), who applied for cashier positions at Timeless Investments but were not hired, while several younger applicants were selected instead. The EEOC sought damages and injunctive relief, and both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment—Timeless on the merits of the discrimination claims and the EEOC on affirmative defenses such as laches. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, holding that the EEOC could rely on the applications to establish a prima facie case despite the post-filing death of Rex, but also finding that Timeless suffered prejudice from the loss of Rex's testimony and thus some defenses could limit recovery.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves a civil rights and products liability action brought by Jesse Lucas against the City of Visalia, its police officers, and Taser International after officers used a taser on Lucas, who was experiencing a seizure and had refused medical treatment. Lucas claims violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 along with state-law claims, including that Taser failed to provide adequate warnings about risks of using its device on individuals with seizure disorders. Taser moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the ninth and tenth causes of action for products liability negligence and strict liability based on inadequate warnings. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that some claims lacked sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible claim while others could proceed.

civil rightstorts & liability

This case involves a contractual dispute between franchisee Terry Delamater and franchisor Anytime Fitness, LLC, over multiple fitness gym franchise agreements that include mediation requirements before any litigation or arbitration, choice-of-law provisions favoring Minnesota, and non-competition clauses. Delamater sought declaratory relief to require mediation in California and to declare the non-compete provisions void under California law. The court denied Delamater's motion for summary judgment, granted Anytime Fitness's cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The core reasoning was that the mediation clause in the agreements is enforceable, requiring the parties to complete mediation before initiating litigation, so the court would not reach the merits of the non-compete or other substantive claims at this stage.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings' February 2007 denial of a parole release date. Petitioner Hollister George, convicted in 1991 of second-degree murder and sentenced to 15 years to life for an offense involving a sawed-off shotgun and an attack on a police officer, argued that the denial lacked sufficient evidence of current dangerousness. The district court conducted a de novo review, declined to adopt the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the petition, and instead granted habeas relief. The court reasoned that the board's decision and the state court's affirmance were an unreasonable application of California's 'some evidence' standard under 15 C.C.R. § 2402, as the facts cited did not support a finding that George posed an unreasonable risk of danger to the public, while other evidence indicated suitability for parole. The court ordered the board to calculate a term consistent with Penal Code § 3041.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, homeowners Felipe and Gemma Santos sued their mortgage originator Greenpoint (along with assignee U.S. Bank and servicer Aurora) after refinancing their home loan in 2007, alleging improper fees, inadequate disclosures, and seeking rescission plus damages under TILA, statutory damages under RESPA, and relief under California's UCL. After the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed claims against U.S. Bank and Aurora, the court addressed Greenpoint's motion to dismiss the remaining claims in the First Amended Complaint. The court granted the motion, dismissing all claims, because the TILA rescission and damages claims were inadequately pleaded or time-barred, the RESPA claim lacked sufficient factual support, the UCL claims were derivative and failed, and the FDCPA claim did not apply to an originating lender; plaintiffs received leave to amend three causes of action.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves plaintiffs Melvin and Evelyn Dias, who purchased two variable life insurance policies from Nationwide Life Insurance Company in 1998 through their financial advisor John Pena, alleging a single claim of fraud and seeking recovery of over $400,000 in premiums. The plaintiffs claimed Pena misrepresented the policies as self-funding investments tied to the stock market that would require only two annual payments before becoming self-sustaining, despite the policies' actual terms requiring ongoing premiums and allowing values to fluctuate. Nationwide moved for summary judgment, arguing issues including the parol evidence rule, statute of limitations, lack of agency, and insufficient evidence of fraud. The court denied the motion, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding Pena's authority as an agent, the content and effect of the alleged oral misrepresentations, plaintiffs' reliance, and whether the policies' written terms contradicted the representations or barred the fraud claim.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure