Stephen G. Larson

This case concerns the heirs of Superman co-creator Jerome Siegel, who served notices to terminate prior copyright grants under the 1976 Copyright Act for thousands of Superman works. The termination notices omitted required identifying details (title, author, copyright date, and registration number) for the first two weeks of Superman newspaper strips from January 1939. The court held that this omission constituted harmless error under Copyright Office regulations and did not invalidate the notices' application to those strips. The decision was based on the extensive cataloging of other works in the notices, the minuscule proportion of omitted material, the presence of a catch-all clause, and the overall context of the iconic, long-exploited property. The court denied both parties' motions for reconsideration of its prior ruling on this issue.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned the tax treatment of restricted stock received by former Ernst & Young consulting partner John Nackel in the 2000 sale of the firm's consulting practice to Cap Gemini, S.A. Nackel initially reported the stock's value as 2000 income on his original return but later filed an amended return excluding it to claim a refund, prompting the United States to sue under 26 U.S.C. § 7405 to recover the refund as erroneous. The district court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the transaction documents allocated the income to 2000 and that the stock's restrictions did not defer taxation. The decision followed the reasoning in similar cases, such as United States v. Fletcher, that the deal's provisions fixed the tax consequences in the year of receipt.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiff Veronica Pearson, a former Northwest Airlines ramp worker and union member, who sued the airline's long-term disability plan, its administrator, and related parties under ERISA after her 2007 claim for benefits—stemming from 2004 workplace injuries—was denied as untimely. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion, holding that the disability plan was created under a collective bargaining agreement, making the dispute a minor one under the Railway Labor Act that must be resolved through mandatory arbitration rather than in federal court. The opinion reasoned that ERISA claims arising from CBA-governed benefits plans are displaced by the RLA's framework for airline and railroad labor disputes, with no exception for procedural challenges to the denial.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

The case concerned a wrongful death claim brought by the family of passenger Ramazan Aziz, who suffered cardiac arrest on an Air India international flight from Frankfurt to Los Angeles; the plaintiffs alleged that the airline's failure to equip the aircraft with an automated external defibrillator (AED) caused his death. The court granted the airline's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' partial motion, holding that the Montreal Convention exclusively governs the claim and preempts state tort law. Under the Convention, the absence of an AED on the flight did not constitute an "accident" creating liability, as no applicable regulation or treaty required such equipment at the time and the airline followed its established medical emergency procedures. The decision rested on binding precedent interpreting the Convention and federal aviation rules, while noting a factual dispute on causation that was not reached due to the lack of liability.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a claim by Janice Parker against the Vulcan Materials Company Long Term Disability Plan under ERISA for long-term disability benefits that were terminated starting July 1, 2006. The plaintiff argued she was totally disabled due to conditions including anxiety, depression, Lyme disease, and related infections, seeking benefits beyond the policy's mental disorder exclusion period. After a bench trial, the court decided that the plan administrator, Hartford, did not abuse its discretion in denying the claim. The reasoning was that even accounting for a conflict of interest, the evidence did not establish that the plaintiff's physical conditions prevented her from performing her occupational duties as required by the policy.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case concerned a wheelchair user who visited a Leslie's Poolmart store and encountered a non-compliant handicap parking space that blocked the accessible ramp, violating ADA Accessibility Guidelines; she was awarded the $1,000 statutory minimum penalty under California's Disabled Persons Act after the court granted partial summary judgment on her state-law claim (her federal ADA claim having become moot due to the defendant's subsequent remediation). Plaintiff then moved for attorneys' fees under Cal. Civil Code § 54.3. The court granted the motion, awarding $39,057.83 after reducing the requested amount by $1,111.17 for unrelated work, applying state law to determine both the right to fees and their reasonableness based on the prevailing community rate and the meritorious nature of the access claim.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves claims by African American barbershop owners and operators in Moreno Valley alleging that police and inspectors conducted overly intrusive, warrantless raid-style administrative searches on April 2, 2008, targeting businesses serving primarily African American clients, in violation of constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and equal protection. The plaintiffs described police officers in bulletproof vests blocking entrances, searching non-barbering areas, and questioning patrons during what were purportedly routine health and safety inspections. The court granted the individual Code Enforcement defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend, denied the other defendants' motions to dismiss, and held one motion in abeyance pending jurisdictional discovery, reasoning that some claims required further factual development or were premature while others sufficiently alleged violations involving racial profiling and coercive tactics.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case concerns the efforts by the heirs of Superman co-creators Jerome Siegel and Joseph Shuster to terminate copyright grants to Warner Bros. for works featuring the character published between 1938 and 1943 under the termination provisions of the 1976 Copyright Act. The court addresses whether these works qualify as "works made for hire," which are excluded from termination rights, by examining the creators' contractual relationships with publishers like Detective Comics and the McClure Newspaper Syndicate, as well as the application of the 1909 Copyright Act's rules on initial ownership and renewal terms. Key issues include the status of newspaper comic strips as composite works versus separately registered contributions and the impact of prior assignments on renewal copyrights. The court concludes that certain renewals were transferred by assignment rather than automatically by statute, allowing potential termination for some publications while preserving other issues for further proceedings.

property

The case concerns Karen Holifield's challenge to Unum Life Insurance Company's denial of short-term and long-term disability benefits under policies provided by her employer, KJC Operating Company, after she stopped working in 2002 due to symptoms of chronic fatigue syndrome (epidemic neuromyasthenia). The court conducted an administrative review of the claim file, including medical records from Dr. Kundargi and communications between the parties. It concluded that Unum's denial was proper because Holifield failed to demonstrate she was receiving regular care conforming to generally accepted medical standards, as her treatment lacked recommended neuropsychological testing and other objective evaluations for CFS. The core reasoning focused on the policy definitions of disability and regular care, the delays and incompleteness of submitted records, and alignment with CDC guidelines on CFS management.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case involved Lincoln National Life Insurance Company seeking a declaration that three $10 million life insurance policies on Dr. Gordon Fishman were void from the outset as stranger-originated life insurance lacking a valid insurable interest. Lincoln moved to dismiss its claims without prejudice after the policies lapsed for nonpayment of premiums, while defendants Mutual Credit Corporation and Spurling Group II moved for summary judgment. The court denied Lincoln's motion to dismiss, reasoning that a without-prejudice dismissal would improperly preserve the ability to relitigate the policies' validity later, which contradicted any claim of mootness and would prejudice defendants after years of litigation and completed discovery. The court granted defendants summary judgment, finding that the undisputed facts showed the policies complied with insurable-interest requirements because Dr. Fishman or an interested party held them for the first two years following issuance.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a jurisdictional dispute between two unions over which workers should perform plastering work on Los Angeles Unified School District projects. After the employer assigned the work to employees represented by the Regional Council of Carpenters, the NLRB issued a Section 10(k) decision awarding the work to those employees in 2006. Local 200 later obtained a contrary arbitration award under a project labor agreement ordering reassignment of the work to its members. Petitioners sought to vacate the arbitration award, and the court granted their motion for summary judgment. The court held that the NLRB's 10(k) award takes immediate precedence over any conflicting arbitral award, even while related unfair labor practice proceedings remain pending, and therefore vacated the award and dismissed the counterclaim seeking its enforcement.

labor & employment

The case is a federal habeas corpus petition challenging a California state prisoner's denial of parole suitability by the Board of Parole Hearings. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after conducting a de novo review of the respondent's objections. It held that California inmates have a liberty interest in parole release protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, requiring that unsuitability findings be supported by "some evidence" of current dangerousness under clearly established Supreme Court law as interpreted by Ninth Circuit precedent. The court rejected arguments that no such liberty interest or standard exists and clarified that review must focus on the Board's stated reasons without supplying additional justifications.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a jurisdictional dispute between unions over plastering work on Los Angeles Unified School District projects, where an arbitrator under the AFL-CIO Plan awarded the work to Local 200-represented employees, conflicting with a prior NLRB Section 10(k) decision assigning it to Regional Council-represented employees. Plaintiffs sued to vacate the arbitration award on grounds including lack of authority to arbitrate and preemption by the NLRB ruling, while defendants counterclaimed to enforce it. The court denied defendants' motion to stay the federal proceedings pending ongoing NLRB unfair labor practice cases and appeals, holding that the 10(k) award itself is final and controlling for purposes of preempting contrary arbitration awards under federal labor law.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved the United States suing Harvey Duro and Desert Mobilehome Park for allegedly breaching a prior court-approved stipulation by failing to obtain a government-approved lease for operating a mobile home park on allotted Indian land in violation of 25 U.S.C. § 415, along with related nuisance claims. After an earlier partial summary judgment favoring the government on the lease and stipulation claims, the court held a bench trial and reconsidered the issues. The court vacated its prior finding of breach and dismissed that cause of action with prejudice, concluding that California Title 25 regulations did not apply to the Indian land absent an approved lease or agreement, that no meeting of the minds existed to incorporate them into the stipulation, and that the lease provisions in the stipulation were ambiguous with no clear evidence of violations of applicable tribal codes. The court also addressed ongoing remedies such as receivership and accounting for study group payments.

federal powerproperty

In Santa Cruz v. Small, a state prisoner petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after being convicted by a jury of sodomy and aggravated sodomy of a child under 14, claiming that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. The district court denied the petition and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court reasoned that under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), the state court's decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that the victim's acquiescence was due to an implied threat of force, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves the remaining claims in a long-running copyright dispute over Superman works after a successful termination of prior grants, specifically a state law unfair competition claim under California law, declaratory relief confirming the termination, three claims for an accounting of profits from the works, and a request to pierce the corporate veil by treating DC Comics and its affiliates as alter egos. The court decided that the accounting and alter ego issues must be tried to the court in bench trials rather than to a jury. The core reasoning applied Seventh Amendment precedents distinguishing legal from equitable claims and remedies, concluding that an accounting among established co-owners of a copyright is a traditional equitable remedy, as is corporate veil piercing, while noting the parties' agreement that the unfair competition claim is also equitable. The opinion reserved certain mechanical questions about the accounting for later and set staggered bench trial dates in 2009.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Kirk Randall Thomas challenging his 2004 California state conviction for corporal injury to a spouse/cohabitant with a great bodily injury enhancement, for which he was sentenced to six years in prison after a probation violation. The district court dismissed the First Amended Petition and the action as untimely. The court adopted the magistrate judge's findings that the one-year statute of limitations under AEDPA had expired, petitioner's state habeas filings did not toll the period because they were either denied or not properly filed, and no basis existed for equitable tolling or a later start date.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

In this habeas corpus case, judgment was entered on January 31, 2008, granting petitioner Charles McCarnes's petition and reinstating his parole date, but respondent failed to file a timely notice of appeal by the March 3 deadline under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). Respondent later moved to reopen the time to appeal under Rule 4(a)(6), citing lack of notice due to a change in counsel where the electronic notice had been sent only to the former deputy attorney general whose email was disabled. The court granted the motion after finding that respondent had not received notice under Rule 77(d) within 21 days, the motion was filed within the required timeframe, and petitioner would not suffer prejudice beyond the ordinary consequences of an appeal, thereby allowing respondent 14 days from the order to file a notice of appeal.

procedurecriminal law

This case was a class action brought by multiple classes of San Bernardino County Jail inmates challenging the county's blanket policy of strip searching them without reasonable suspicion or probable cause in situations such as pre-arraignment transfers, transfers from federal or other custody, post-court-release, and group settings. The court had previously granted partial summary judgment holding that the routine pre-arraignment and post-release strip searches violated the Fourth Amendment. After the parties reached a settlement creating a class fund of approximately $25.65 million, the court awarded class counsel 25% of that fund ($6,375,000) plus costs as attorney's fees, applying the benchmark percentage for a fund of this size, considering the results obtained, case complexity and risk, and confirming reasonableness via a lodestar cross-check of counsel's time.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerns Joanne Siegel and Laura Siegel Larson, widow and daughter of Superman co-creator Jerome Siegel, who sought a declaration that they had validly terminated the 1938 grant of copyright in the Superman character under the termination provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976, thereby recapturing Siegel's share of the copyright from Warner Bros. and related entities. The court ruled on cross-motions for partial summary judgment, granting them in part and denying them in part on issues such as the effectiveness of the termination notice, whether it was timely repudiated, the impact of prior settlement discussions, and the application of tolling agreements to statute-of-limitations defenses. The core reasoning focused on the formal requirements and timing rules for copyright terminations, the historical facts of the Superman creation and grants, and the legal effect of co-ownership and prior agreements between the parties.

propertyprocedure