The case concerned a minor plaintiff's challenge to the admissions policy of the Corinne A. Seeds University Elementary School, a laboratory school operated by UCLA, after her application was denied; she alleged that the policy's use of race and ethnicity as factors violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment. Following a bench trial on the remaining claims, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing whether the policy served a compelling interest and was narrowly tailored. The court determined that the school had a compelling interest in maintaining a racially and ethnically diverse student body to conduct and disseminate research relevant to California's urban public schools, and that the admissions criteria were narrowly tailored to achieve that goal without being overly rigid or quota-based.
This case involves a plaintiff's challenge under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Social Security Commissioner's denial of supplemental security income benefits, which he sought based on claimed disability from heart and back ailments since 1977. After an initial ALJ decision finding substantial gainful activity through drug dealing, a remand for further proceedings, and a second ALJ decision finding such activity until methadone treatment began followed by residual capacity for light work, the magistrate judge recommended affirming the denial. The district court adopted that recommendation in full, concluding that the Commissioner applied proper legal standards and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the plaintiff's testimony. Judgment was entered dismissing the action with prejudice.
This case concerned a motion for Rule 11 sanctions filed by Travelers Indemnity Company against counsel for Montrose Chemical Corporation in seven related federal actions alleging that insurance companies had a duty to defend Montrose in state-court suits over DDT-polluted sites. The court granted the sanctions, determining that Montrose's complaints frivolously asserted diversity jurisdiction without an adequate factual basis, resulting in dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, while finding the misidentification of related cases to be inadvertent rather than judge shopping. The core reasoning was that the complaints lacked a reasonable legal or factual foundation for federal jurisdiction, proper notice under Rule 11's safe harbor provision had been provided, and any delay in pursuing dismissal was not attributable to Travelers. Sanctions were set at $71,678.58 in attorneys' fees, excluding costs of the sanctions motion itself.
This case concerns claims by plaintiffs Sanchez and Torres against the City of Santa Ana under Title VII for the alleged disparate impact of the Santa Ana Police Department's pay and promotion policies on Hispanic employees, specifically challenging the 1977-78 sergeant promotional exam (including written test and seniority bonuses), merit pay policy, and special Crime Scene Investigator pay. After a bench trial, the court outlined the legal framework for disparate impact claims, requiring plaintiffs to identify specific practices, demonstrate a substantial statistical disparity through relevant labor market or applicant data, and establish causation, with the burden then shifting to the defendant to rebut the statistics or prove business necessity. The court noted that plaintiffs must ultimately disprove any business justification or identify equally effective nondiscriminatory alternatives, and it directed the City to submit proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a judgment consistent with this analysis within fourteen days.
The case was a qui tam action under the False Claims Act in which relator Leocadio Barajas alleged that Northrop falsified testing of Flight Data Transmitters for Air Launched Cruise Missiles and later added claims about defective damping fluid in the units. The government intervened on the testing claims, conducted a parallel criminal investigation, and reached a plea agreement with Northrop; Barajas then severed his remaining claims. Following a Ninth Circuit reversal of an earlier dismissal, the district court denied Northrop's renewed motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that Barajas had provided the government with the essential information about the testing fraud and damping fluid issues before any public disclosure and therefore qualified as an original source.
This case involves claims by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Danjaq that American Honda Motor Co. and its advertising agency infringed their copyrights in sixteen James Bond films and the James Bond character by airing a commercial for the Honda del Sol that featured a similar high-speed chase scene with a suave hero, heroine, and villain. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to halt the commercial, while the defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted the preliminary injunction, requiring a $6 million bond and prohibiting further display of the commercial, and denied the summary judgment motion. The ruling rested on findings that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their copyright infringement claim due to substantial similarities and access, creating a presumption of irreparable harm, along with resolution of evidentiary objections related to ownership and expert declarations.