David Vreeland Kenyon

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.

civil rights

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.

healthcare

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.

procedure

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

criminal lawprocedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

propertyprocedure

This case was a qui tam action under the False Claims Act in which the plaintiff alleged that Northrop Corporation and other defendants committed fraud in connection with various defense programs. The court dismissed the first amended complaint with prejudice as to all defendants. Although the 1986 amendments to the Act's statute of limitations were held to apply retroactively, the court reasoned that the tolling provision based on the government's discovery of the facts was intended only for suits brought by the government itself and did not extend the limitations period for private relators, so the claims filed in 1993 based on 1986 conduct were time-barred under the six-year provision.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a post-judgment order in a patent, antitrust, and state-law claims dispute between Automotive Products PLC and Tilton Engineering, Inc., where Tilton had prevailed on its patent and antitrust claims. The court awarded Tilton $1,841,906 in attorney's fees on the patent claim, $1,036,918.25 on the antitrust claim, plus specified expenses and expert witness fees totaling over $2.3 million overall. It rejected the defendant's requests for percentage reductions, finding that Tilton had adequately allocated its time entries between recoverable claims, was the prevailing party entitled to full compensation under Hensley v. Eckerhart even if not successful on every theory, and had exercised reasonable billing judgment. The court based the awards on detailed documentation submitted by Tilton and applicable Ninth Circuit precedent allowing recovery of necessary expert fees.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Transphase Systems, Inc., a seller of thermal energy storage systems for demand-side management, suing Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric for violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Transphase alleged that the utilities conspired and used their monopoly power to suppress rebate levels approved by the California Public Utilities Commission, thereby restraining competition in the market for these systems. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the federal antitrust claims with prejudice under Federal Rule 12(b)(6), also dismissing the related state law claims. It reasoned that the claims were barred by the state action doctrine because the utilities' conduct was authorized and actively supervised by the CPUC, that their participation in CPUC proceedings was protected under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and that Transphase failed to adequately allege that the defendants competed in the relevant market for attempted monopolization.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of Teledyne, Inc. against its directors and officers, alleging their participation or acquiescence in a pattern of criminal and fraudulent conduct by corporate subsidiaries, such as selling defective relays to the government, submitting inflated bids, and inadequate testing on military equipment, resulting in investigations, guilty pleas, and large settlements. Plaintiffs asserted federal claims under RICO and Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act for proxy omissions, plus state claims for intentional and negligent breach of fiduciary duties, seeking damages, disgorgement of compensation, and invalidation of director elections. The court dismissed all claims, ruling that the parent corporation was not a proper RICO plaintiff because the alleged racketeering was conducted through subsidiaries against third parties for the corporation's benefit, and that officers and directors had no duty under securities laws to disclose unadjudicated wrongdoing in proxies prior to litigation; the pendent state claims were therefore also dismissed.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a defendant who pleaded guilty to illegal reentry into the United States after prior deportation, which carried a statutory maximum of 15 years due to a prior aggravated felony conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). The court had informed the defendant before his plea that the maximum penalty was only two years, based on an outdated INS Form I-294 that the government had disseminated for years after a 1988 law change increased the penalties. The Probation Office calculated a guidelines range of 57-71 months, but the court imposed a sentence of 24 months. The core reasoning was that the government's gross negligence in providing misleading penalty information constituted a mitigating circumstance not adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission, justifying a downward departure under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b) to promote respect for the law.

immigrationcriminal law

In this case, Donlon I Development Corp. petitioned to quash third-party IRS summonses issued without the required notice under 26 U.S.C. § 7609 and later moved for attorney’s fees and costs under 26 U.S.C. § 7430 after the United States withdrew the summonses. The court had previously granted the government’s motion to dismiss the underlying petition but kept the case open solely to address the fee request. The court denied the motion, applying a bifurcated analysis of whether the United States’ position was “substantially justified” in both administrative and judicial phases. It found no qualifying administrative proceedings under the statute and determined that the government’s prompt withdrawal of the summonses before answering the petition rendered its judicial position substantially justified, so the petitioner did not qualify as a prevailing party entitled to fees.

taxesprocedure

Plaintiff Barbara Smiley filed a class action lawsuit in California state court against Citibank alleging that its practice of charging up to $15 monthly late fees on credit cards violated California Civil Code § 1671 and constituted fraud by nondisclosure, seeking damages, a constructive trust, and injunctive relief. Citibank, a South Dakota corporation, timely removed the case to federal district court asserting diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Citibank later moved to amend its removal petition after the 30-day deadline to add a new ground for removal based on complete preemption of state claims by the National Bank Act under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). The court denied the motion to amend, holding that post-deadline amendments may only cure defective allegations of existing grounds and cannot introduce entirely new bases for federal jurisdiction, and granted the plaintiff's motion to remand after finding that the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction had not been satisfied in the putative class action.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves Microsoft suing computer manufacturer BEC Computer Co. and related entities for breaching software licensing agreements by distributing MS-DOS and WINDOWS programs as stand-alone products without accompanying computer systems, in violation of the agreements' terms, leading Microsoft to terminate the licenses. In response, defendants filed counterclaims and multiple affirmative defenses, prompting Microsoft to move to strike several defenses and dismiss certain counterclaims. The court granted Microsoft's motions to strike the second, fifth, eighth, tenth, thirteenth, and fifteenth affirmative defenses and to dismiss the second, third, and ninth counterclaims, all with prejudice, while denying defendants' request to strike a supporting declaration. The reasoning centered on the defenses being redundant, insufficient as a matter of law, or failing to state valid claims, such as antitrust violations or breach of the covenant of good faith, because the licensing restrictions did not violate public policy or antitrust laws and the alleged conduct occurred before any contractual relationship formed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved property owners challenging the City of Arroyo Grande's updated general plan, which redesignated their long-farmed strawberry fields from agricultural to residential and commercial uses but required submission of a specific plan for any conversion and included a temporary water moratorium on new development applications. The owners claimed agriculture was no longer economically viable, objected to the specific plan requirement, and argued the measures prevented them from selling or developing the land, though they never prepared or requested a specific plan or filed formal development applications. The court granted the city's motion for summary judgment and denied the owners', concluding that the plan was adopted after extensive public hearings to preserve the town's rural and agricultural character, the moratorium was supported by evidence of insufficient water supplies, and the owners had not pursued available procedures to enable development with no showing of improper city motives.

propertyenvironmentbusiness & regulatory

This case concerned a challenge to the 1981 redistricting plan for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that the plan violated both provisions by diluting the voting strength of the Hispanic community and denying it an equal opportunity to elect candidates of its choice. The decision rested on findings that the Hispanic population was sufficiently large and geographically compact to form a majority of the citizen voting age population in at least one district, that Hispanic voters were politically cohesive, and that non-Hispanic bloc voting existed, all evaluated under the totality of the circumstances including a history of official discrimination. The court therefore required the County to submit a new redistricting plan and retained jurisdiction to implement one if necessary.

electionscivil rights

The case involves the State of California seeking a preliminary injunction to block the proposed merger of Lucky Stores and Alpha Beta (American Stores), the first and fourth largest supermarket chains in the state, on grounds that it would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act and related antitrust statutes by substantially lessening competition in retail grocery markets across multiple California metropolitan statistical areas. The court granted the injunction, finding that the State had shown a fair chance of success on the merits through statistical evidence of high post-merger market concentration and HHI increases that raised a presumption of anticompetitive effects under precedents like United States v. Philadelphia National Bank. It further determined that there was a significant threat of irreparable injury to consumers from reduced competition and that the balance of hardships favored preserving the status quo pending full resolution, applying Ninth Circuit standards for preliminary relief in antitrust matters.

business & regulatory

This case is a class action brought by Salvadoran nationals detained by the INS who sought political asylum under U.S. law, alleging that detention practices interfered with their rights. The district court made extensive findings of fact about human rights conditions in El Salvador and INS procedures, then issued a permanent injunction imposing detailed requirements on the agency. The injunction mandates access to counsel and asylum information without coercion, privacy for attorney communications, limits on solitary confinement and transfers, and provision of legal materials in Spanish. The court reasoned that these measures were necessary to protect class members' ability to pursue asylum claims under the Refugee Act and immigration statutes.

immigrationcivil rightsprocedure

In Gregorian v. Izvestia, U.S. plaintiffs sued Soviet state trading entities and the newspaper Izvestia for unpaid contracts related to medical equipment exports and for libel based on a 1984 article accusing plaintiff Raphael Gregorian of bribery, smuggling, and espionage, which allegedly led to the revocation of their business accreditation in the USSR. After the Soviet defendants rejected service and defaulted, the district court entered a default judgment awarding damages on the contract and libel claims under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The defendants then moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to set aside the judgment and dismiss for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction. The court analyzed whether the commercial activity exception in 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2) applied to confer jurisdiction, distinguishing between the contract disputes and the libel claim arising from official state media publication.

procedurefederal powertorts & liability

The case involved companies subject to an EPA administrative order under CERCLA directing them to clean up hazardous waste at the McColl site, who challenged the constitutionality of the statute's provisions for daily penalties under §9606(b) and treble punitive damages under §9607(c)(3) for non-compliance, raising due process and First Amendment claims. The court granted the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment in part and denied them in part, ruling that §9607(c)(3) is constitutional if interpreted to require the government to prove bad faith before imposing punitive damages, thereby providing a good faith defense. It denied the First Amendment claim, concluding that the issue was properly analyzed under due process rather than petition rights, and held that it lacked jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment on whether the plaintiffs had "sufficient cause" for non-compliance. The daily penalties claim was deemed moot because the government stated it would not seek them.

environmentfederal powercivil rightsprocedure