Judith Nelsen Keep

This case involves Sprint Telephony PCS and Pacific Bell Wireless challenging a San Diego County ordinance regulating the placement and design of wireless telecommunications facilities, alleging it violates the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 by effectively prohibiting service provision. Plaintiffs brought claims under 47 U.S.C. § 253(a), the Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking declaratory relief. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the § 253(a) claim and the § 1983 claim against the County, finding that the TCA does not preclude a § 1983 remedy and that the complaint sufficiently stated a claim. However, the court granted dismissal of the § 1983 damages claim against individual county supervisors, holding they are protected by absolute legislative immunity for enacting the ordinance. The ruling rests on analysis of preemption under the TCA's framework and standards for motions to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c) and 12(b)(6).

business & regulatoryfederal powercivil rights

The case involved a plaintiff suing the United States, OHM Remediation Services, and later Shaw (as successor to bankrupt entities IT and OHM) for personal injuries from alleged exposure to toxic materials including thallium at a landfill near her military base housing. Shaw moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the Delaware bankruptcy court's sale order transferred assets free and clear of claims, the Bankruptcy Code preempts successor liability, and California law does not impose such liability on asset purchasers. The court granted the motion with prejudice, holding that the bankruptcy order barred the claims, preemption applied, and no facts supported exceptions like de facto merger or mere continuation under California law.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute over disability insurance benefits where plaintiff Dr. Mark Hubka, a chiropractor, sued defendant Paul Revere Life Insurance Co. after the insurer terminated total disability payments following an injury from a 1997 accident. The plaintiff alleged breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and sought punitive damages, claiming the termination was wrongful despite medical opinions supporting total disability. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether the insurer acted in bad faith by relying on surveillance and a non-chiropractic IME without obtaining an independent chiropractic evaluation as recommended. The court also held that evidence could support punitive damages by clear and convincing evidence due to potential conscious disregard of the plaintiff's rights under the policy. California law applied under diversity jurisdiction.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case concerned whether Mirama Enterprises, doing business as Aroma Housewares, violated federal law by failing to report to the Consumer Product Safety Commission hazards associated with its model ACJ-250 juice extractor after receiving consumer complaints that the device had shattered and caused injuries. The district court granted the government's motion for summary judgment on liability. The court found that uncontested facts showed Aroma received multiple complaints of shattering, cuts, and explosions starting in January 1998, conducted internal testing that revealed blade breakage under pressure, and therefore had the requisite notice of a potential product defect or danger that triggered the statutory duty to report. Evidentiary objections were resolved in the government's favor on key points, leaving no genuine dispute that Aroma should have notified the Commission well before it did so in November 1998.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

The case involved Petitioner Khan, a Pakistani native and former lawful permanent resident detained by the INS following a criminal conviction that resulted in a final removal order in January 2001. The court initially granted his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and ordered release subject to reasonable conditions, but reconsidered after the government filed a motion to alter the judgment with new evidence regarding the likelihood of repatriation. Relying on Zadvydas v. Davis, which holds that post-removal detention beyond six months is presumptively reasonable and places the burden on the detainee to demonstrate no significant likelihood of removal, the court determined that Khan failed to meet this burden given INS efforts to obtain travel documents from Pakistan, a scheduled consular meeting, and hundreds of successful repatriations of Pakistani nationals. The court therefore granted the motion to alter the judgment, denied the habeas petition, denied the motion to compel release, and allowed Khan to refile in six months if not yet removed.

immigrationcriminal law

The case involved a lawsuit by the father and estate of Juan Leon, who died in San Diego County jail custody from peritonitis complications, alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights through deliberate indifference to medical needs, failure to train and supervise, and unconstitutional policies or customs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a state medical negligence claim. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity for the County and sheriff in his official capacity, insufficient facts for personal capacity claims against the sheriff, and that the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim. The court denied the motion in full, reasoning that under California law and relevant precedents the sheriff acts as a county policymaker when operating the jail and addressing inmate medical care, so Eleventh Amendment immunity does not apply and Monell liability may proceed; the complaint sufficiently alleged the sheriff's personal involvement in training and supervision failures; and federal claims remaining meant supplemental jurisdiction over the negligence claim was appropriate.

civil rightscriminal lawfederal powerprocedure

This case involves four aliens detained by the INS under final orders of removal to Vietnam or the UK, who petitioned for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 after being held in custody for over two years (in some cases nearly four) without deportation. The court issued an order to show cause why the petitioners should not be released under supervision, finding that their prolonged detention raised substantive due process concerns. The core reasoning was that once deportation is not reasonably foreseeable, an alien's liberty interest outweighs the INS's diminished interest in detention, rendering continued custody punitive rather than regulatory, especially where decisions were based solely on criminal history without evidence of ongoing danger or flight risk. The court deferred ruling on procedural due process claims pending further submissions from the INS.

immigrationcivil rights

The case concerned Playboy Enterprises' claims of federal and state trademark infringement, false designation of origin, dilution, unfair competition, counterfeiting, and breach of contract against former Playmate of the Year Terri Welles and associated defendants, arising from Welles's use of terms such as "Playmate of the Year" and "PMOY" on her personal website and in metatags. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all eight counts. The core reasoning was that Welles's uses were nominative fair uses that accurately identified her past affiliation with Playboy without creating a likelihood of confusion as to sponsorship or endorsement, and that the plaintiff failed to establish the required elements for its dilution and other claims.

business & regulatory

The case involved a pro se plaintiff's FOIA request to the IRS for a copy of a document she had previously submitted, which had prompted a Form 3175 letter from the agency regarding tax liability arguments. After the IRS responded that the document had been discarded and denied her administrative appeal on the grounds that a reasonable search yielded no records, the plaintiff sued the Commissioner to compel production under FOIA. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that the IRS had fulfilled its FOIA obligations by conducting a reasonable search and did not possess the requested document. The court also denied the plaintiff's request for leave to amend the complaint to add a Privacy Act claim, concluding that the Act does not provide a remedy for the destruction of agency records or impose liability in these circumstances. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a class action lawsuit filed by plaintiff Aaron Abada against Charles Schwab & Co. in state court, alleging violations of California unfair trade practices and false advertising laws, as well as unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud, based on Schwab's online statements about the speed and reliability of its brokerage services that allegedly caused losses during a volatile stock trade of TGLO shares. Schwab removed the case to federal court under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA), prompting Abada's motion to remand. The court denied the motion to remand, holding that the claims were preempted by SLUSA. The core reasoning was that the alleged misrepresentations were made "in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security," the action qualified as a covered class action, and SLUSA mandates exclusive federal jurisdiction over such state-law securities fraud class actions without falling into any statutory exceptions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a pro se state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1996 life sentence under California's Three Strikes law for auto theft and drug paraphernalia possession, which was enhanced by three prior 1991 robbery convictions. The petitioner argued that one of those robbery convictions violated due process because it breached a plea agreement that purportedly barred additional robbery charges. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full after de novo review of objections, finding that the plea colloquy clarified the agreement did not cover the other robberies, that the prior convictions were valid strikes, and that no prosecutorial or judicial misconduct or ineffective assistance occurred. The petition was denied along with a related motion for records.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves a petition for writ of habeas corpus by Alireza Alikhani, an Iranian national and lawful permanent resident convicted of drug and firearm offenses, who is being mandatorily detained without bond by the INS under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) pending removal proceedings. The court determined it had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 despite provisions in IIRIRA, but rejected the petitioner's constitutional challenges including due process and equal protection claims regarding the mandatory detention and its prospective application. The court reasoned that the detention statute is constitutional, the prospective application is rational and not arbitrary, and the petitioner's claims did not implicate barred discretionary decisions by the Attorney General. Ultimately, the court denied the writ of habeas corpus.

immigrationcriminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. sued former Playmate of the Year Terri Welles for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, dilution, and unfair competition under federal and state law, based on her use of the terms "Playmate of the Year" and "PMOY" as headings, watermarks, and meta tags on her personal modeling website. The court denied Playboy's motion for a preliminary injunction. It reasoned that Welles made nominative fair use of the marks to truthfully identify herself and her prior title, that this use was unlikely to cause consumer confusion as to source or sponsorship, and that Playboy therefore failed to show a strong likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm.

business & regulatory

In this bankruptcy case, Japanese corporation Maruko, Inc. filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in 1991, with its plan confirmed in 1994; the case remained open without conversion or dismissal. After a 1996 statutory amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1930(a)(6), the U.S. Trustee sought quarterly fees based on the debtor's post-confirmation disbursements, but the bankruptcy court ruled that only the $250 minimum fee applied because the bankruptcy estate no longer existed and disbursements were limited to those from the estate. On appeal, the district court reversed, holding that the amended statute requires quarterly fees in all unconverted or undismissed Chapter 11 cases based on the broad statutory term 'disbursements,' without distinction between pre- and post-confirmation periods or limitation to estate assets. The court reasoned that Congress intended the fees to apply consistently to generate revenue for the U.S. Trustee program regardless of confirmation status. The case was remanded for calculation of the fees owed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Unigard Insurance Company, which sought records from the ATF under FOIA regarding an arson investigation at a fire-damaged commercial site that Unigard insured; ATF had restricted access to and altered the site during its probe. ATF denied the request under FOIA's law enforcement exemption because disclosure could interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation by an inter-agency task force. Unigard filed suit in federal court after an administrative appeal was denied, but the court granted ATF's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that Unigard lacked standing because the FOIA request had been submitted by its attorney without indicating it was made on Unigard's behalf, meaning Unigard itself had not exhausted administrative remedies or properly invoked the agency's obligations. The court therefore did not reach the cross-motions for summary judgment.

procedurefederal powercriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

This case was a consolidated securities class action alleging that Brooktree Corporation and its officers made false and misleading statements that artificially inflated the company's stock price from October 1992 to March 1994, in violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The parties reached a $5.5 million settlement, which the court approved. Class counsel then moved for $1.65 million in attorneys' fees (30% of the fund) plus about $150,000 in costs, but the court found the supporting materials insufficient because they lacked details on hours worked, attorney staffing, complexity, or itemized expenses. Applying Ninth Circuit precedent allowing either the percentage-of-the-fund or lodestar method for common-fund fee awards, the court evaluated the supplemental submissions, noted that the requested fee implied an effective rate far above counsel's actual time records, and addressed specific cost categories while requiring waivers for inadequately documented items.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved AT&T seeking to recover over $80,000 in long-distance charges incurred through unauthorized access by a computer hacker to the phone systems of defendants CHG, a nonprofit HMO, and SYHC, a related health care provider, in 1992. AT&T moved for summary judgment on its claim under its filed tariff with the FCC, which makes customers responsible for payment of charges for calls originating from their numbers. The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issue of material fact that SYHC qualified as a customer under the tariff by constructively ordering the service, that the calls originated from its system, and that it refused to pay. The court rejected defenses based on the defendants' security measures, AT&T's alleged duties to warn or prevent fraud, and claims that the tariff terms were vague, holding that the tariff imposed liability regardless of authorization and that AT&T had no such duties under the tariff.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a high school senior who brought a pellet gun to school, leading to his suspension and pending expulsion under California law, after which he requested a special education evaluation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and invoked its stay-put provision to remain in his current placement during review proceedings. The school district opposed his return, arguing he posed a danger, while the student sought a temporary restraining order to prevent exclusion. The court determined that IDEA's stay-put rule applied, requiring the student to remain in his educational placement unless he posed a danger to himself or others, and found based on the facts that he did not meet that threshold for exclusion.

civil rights

The case involved the United States and the Torres-Martinez Band of Mission Indians suing the Imperial Irrigation District and Coachella Valley Water District for trespass, claiming that agricultural drainage raised the Salton Sea level and flooded reservation lands from 1924 onward. The court held the defendants liable for trespass, awarding nominal damages of $39,000, past damages of $1,277,062, and future damages of $2,594,000 based on the land's fee value, while denying an injunction as inequitable. It rejected the consent defense based on 1924/1928 land withdrawals and 1950 congressional recognition of the sea's boundary, finding no valid authorization for the ongoing inundation. Damages were limited by the statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2415, and prejudgment interest was denied due to the speculative nature of any lost accretion in value.

propertytorts & liabilityenvironmentfederal power

The case involved the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), acting as receiver for a failed savings and loan association, suing former directors for breach of fiduciary duty that led to substantial losses. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims were time-barred under a two-year statute of limitations and that the complaint did not meet the pleading requirements of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA). The court denied the motions, holding that the applicable statute of limitations is four years under California law for such claims, allowing the action to proceed as it was not barred when the FDIC became receiver, and that the pleading was sufficient under FIRREA.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability