This case involves the U.S. Customs Service's seizure of 10,510 imported computer towers at the Port of Oakland that bore unauthorized certification marks owned by Underwriters Laboratories. The government sought forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. section 1526 on the grounds that the marks were counterfeit because they had not been approved for use on the towers or their packaging. Claimant Antee contested the seizure, leading to cross-motions for summary judgment that turned on statutory interpretation rather than disputed facts. The court analyzed whether the marks qualified as counterfeit under the statute and concluded that the goods were subject to forfeiture, with ultimate disposition left to the Executive Branch.
In Grauberger v. St. Francis Hospital, a patient injured in a car accident sued the hospital and its parent after it filed a lien under California's Hospital Lien Act on her settlement with the alleged tortfeasor, seeking the difference between the hospital's full rates and the discounted rates already paid by her insurance plan. The plaintiff sought an injunction against the lien and release of trust funds, asserting claims including conversion, unfair business practices, breach of contract, and civil RICO based on alleged double billing. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the lien was authorized against third-party recoveries. The court assessed the cross-motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 standards, examining the insurance contract's terms on third-party payors, the statutory language of the HLA, and whether a tortfeasor qualifies as a third-party payor.
The case arose from an airplane crash off Point Mugu, California, and involved motions by defendant Alaska Airlines for judgment on the pleadings and partial summary judgment regarding passenger claims. The court held that the Warsaw Convention, as modified by Montreal Protocol No. 4, provides the exclusive basis for those claims against the carrier and bars both punitive damages and pre-impact emotional distress. It further ruled that maritime law governs the remaining claims because the crash occurred over navigable waters, making the precise location irrelevant, and that the Convention permits only compensatory damages under applicable domestic law. The core reasoning drew on Supreme Court precedent treating the Convention as a limited pass-through to forum law for allowed claims, along with consistent case law denying punitive damages.
This case involved qui tam relators alleging that the San Francisco Housing Authority (SFHA) and related defendants violated the False Claims Act by submitting false statements to HUD to obtain HOPE VI, COMP, YAP, ADPCT grants and Section 8 housing certificates, while also claiming retaliation for whistleblowing. On defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court addressed jurisdictional bars such as public disclosure and original source requirements, the elements of false claims including scienter, and damages. Following the Supreme Court's Vermont Agency decision, the court reasoned that the SFHA is a local public entity rather than a sovereign state agency, making it a statutory "person" subject to suit under the FCA, and proceeded to analyze the claims accordingly without resolving the full motion in the excerpted portion.
This case involved consolidated challenges by public interest groups and sanitation agencies against the EPA's actions under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, alleging failures to establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for polluted California waterbodies and improper approval of state submissions that used seasonal rather than daily measures. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. On the first three claims, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the EPA's cross-motion, finding that the agency had complied with its statutory duties. On the fourth claim regarding the seasonal TMDL approach and phased pollutant reductions, the court denied both summary judgment motions because ambiguities in the record and technical issues required an evidentiary hearing rather than resolution on the existing facts and law.
This case involves an antitrust class action alleging a conspiracy among citric acid manufacturers to fix prices. Four defendants settled for approximately $86 million, while the fifth defendant, Cargill, prevailed on summary judgment and appeal with a finding that it was not involved in the conspiracy. Class counsel proposed distributing the settlement proceeds pro rata to class members based on their purchases from all five defendants, including Cargill, but certain class members objected to this method. The court denied approval of the proposed plan, holding that it was not fair, reasonable, and adequate because class members must have a valid legal claim and suffered harm from a defendant to share in the proceeds, and directed submission of a new plan excluding purchases from Cargill.