Charles A. Legge

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.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

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.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

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.

proceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

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.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

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.

environmentfederal power

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute between Supermicro, a California computer parts manufacturer, and Digitechnic, a French assembler, over fourteen purchases of parts between 1996 and 1997 that allegedly caused electrical failures and fires starting in 1998. After Digitechnic sued in French Commercial Court seeking damages, Supermicro filed this declaratory judgment action in federal court seeking rulings that the parts were not defective, any failure resulted from misuse, and remedies were limited to repair or replacement under invoice terms. The court denied Supermicro's motion for partial summary adjudication on remedies and granted Digitechnic's motion to dismiss, exercising discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act to decline jurisdiction. The core reasoning focused on the parallel first-filed French proceeding involving the same parties and transactions, risks of duplicative litigation and inconsistent judgments, the location of evidence and witnesses in France, and the parties' ongoing participation in the foreign case for over a year.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Marketel International, Inc. suing Priceline.com over a patent (the '207 patent), with Marketel claiming that Priceline had misappropriated its ideas and seeking correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256 (Count 5) along with other claims. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the inventorship claim. The core reasoning was that section 256 authorizes correction of inventorship only where the named inventor lacked deceptive intent, but Marketel's allegations of misappropriation showed the opposite; additionally, the strong presumption that the named inventors were correct could not be overcome by clear and convincing evidence of conception by Marketel, as required for priority of invention.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from California's Proposition 4, which enacted Fish and Game Code § 3003.1 to ban the use of leg-hold traps and certain poisons for capturing or killing mammals, with limited exceptions. Plaintiffs including the National Audubon Society sued state officials, arguing the law would increase predator mammals and harm bird populations, while trappers and sponsors of the proposition intervened with opposing claims; federal officials were also joined. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss and for summary judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12, 15, and 56. It dismissed the trappers' complaint, dismissed claims for injunctive relief, and declared that the statute cannot apply to federal government agencies, employees, or contractors engaged in wildlife management on federal lands or under federal law, based on the parties' agreement and the absence of material factual disputes.

environmentfederal power

In Hernandez v. Poole, petitioner Marjorie Hernandez, serving a life sentence after a 1985 state court murder conviction, filed a federal habeas corpus petition alleging that her Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury was violated by improper contacts and bias on the part of the jury foreperson, Willie Wade. The claims centered on Wade's alleged interactions with Hernandez's daughter during the trial, which purportedly provided extrinsic information, as well as evidence of a post-conviction relationship between Wade and Hernandez suggesting possible bias. After an evidentiary hearing involving witness testimony, depositions, and exhibits, the court found that the only contact during trial was a single ride given to the daughter early in the proceedings, that no extrinsic evidence about the case was obtained, and that there was no proof of actual or presumed bias by a preponderance of the evidence. The court therefore denied the petition, concluding that the facts did not establish a constitutional violation warranting relief.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

The case involved defendant Fermín Revuelta, who entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico in 1992 and later purchased firearms in 1996 while his wife's immigrant visa petition was pending but before his priority date was published. He was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) with being an illegal alien in possession of a gun and under § 922(a)(6) with making false statements about his alien status on ATF forms. Revuelta moved to dismiss those counts, contending that his pending visa application meant he was not an illegal alien. The court denied the motion, holding that the statutes and their legislative history establish a bright-line rule prohibiting firearm possession by anyone not yet legally present in the country, regardless of a pending petition.

immigrationgunscriminal law

In Odle v. Calderon, a federal habeas corpus petition filed by death-row inmate James Richard Odle, the petitioner alleged that the prosecution violated his constitutional rights by failing to disclose that its mental health expert, Dr. Paul Berg, was under fraud investigation during the trial and by knowingly presenting false or misleading testimony from that expert regarding Odle's mental state at the time of the murders. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California reviewed the remaining claims (H, I, and cumulative error) de novo after an evidentiary hearing, applying pre-AEDPA standards. The court denied the petition, concluding that petitioner failed to prove any factual falsity in the expert's testimony or that the prosecution knowingly presented false evidence, and that no combination of errors rendered the guilt or penalty phases fundamentally unfair. The court found that information about Odle's brain damage was presented to the jury and that conflicting expert opinions were properly aired, resulting in denial of all claims and vacation of the stay of execution.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, competitors Security People, Inc. (SPI) and Medeco Security Locks, Inc. disputed claims that Medeco's products infringed SPI's '043 patent and misused confidential information from a 1989 confidentiality agreement, with SPI alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, unfair competition, and patent infringement. Medeco moved for summary judgment, arguing the state-law claims were barred by a 1995 settlement agreement that included a broad release of claims from a prior lawsuit and that the patent claim was precluded by collateral estoppel from an earlier summary judgment order finding no infringement. The court granted the motion, holding that the 1995 release covered all claims based on the 1989 agreement regardless of specific products and that the prior non-infringement ruling met the requirements for collateral estoppel because it was a firm, reasoned decision on identical issues involving the same patent and substantially similar products. The settlement agreement's reference to vacating the prior order did not alter its preclusive effect, as the order was never vacated and remained final for estoppel purposes.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved AT&T seeking to confirm an arbitration award finding Pacific Bell liable for improperly imposing access charges under an interconnection agreement governed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, to compel arbitration on damages, and to enjoin related proceedings before the California Public Utilities Commission. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Federal Arbitration Act does not create independent federal jurisdiction, and the Telecommunications Act provisions at issue do not provide a private right of action in federal court for disputes over such agreements, which Congress intended to be overseen primarily by the FCC and state commissions.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involves Sony's motion for a preliminary injunction against Connectix in a copyright infringement action. Sony alleged that Connectix copied its copyrighted BIOS firmware while developing the Virtual Game System (VGS), an emulator allowing PlayStation games to run on computers, even though the final VGS product contained no Sony code. The court granted the injunction, barring Connectix from using the BIOS in development or selling the VGS for Macintosh or Windows systems, and requiring delivery of any copies to the court. The core reasoning was that intermediate copying of copyrighted material during product development constitutes infringement under precedents like Sega, making an injunction against the resulting product the appropriate remedy regardless of the final composition. The court also addressed related claims of technological circumvention and trademark dilution but focused primarily on the copyright issues for this motion.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A) with knowingly transmitting code to an Internet Service Provider's computer system that intentionally caused at least $5,000 in unauthorized damage. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, holding that it sufficiently alleged the elements of the offense, including damage defined as loss of at least $5,000 in a one-year period, even without explicitly stating that the loss was to one or more individuals. The court also interpreted the statutory term "individual" to encompass business entities like the victim ISP, drawing on congressional intent, 1 U.S.C. § 1, and Supreme Court precedent in Clinton v. City of New York. Additional motions for a bill of particulars and further discovery were denied because the indictment, discovery, and government disclosures adequately informed the defendant of the charges and theory of the case.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a passenger stage corporation, Prime Time Shuttle, suing the California Public Utilities Commission and its officials over investigations and enforcement actions for the company's use of non-employee drivers at airports in alleged violation of PUC rules, the Public Utilities Code, and airport regulations. The plaintiff claimed selective and retaliatory enforcement violated its due process and free speech rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as its Fifth Amendment protection against double jeopardy. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issues of material fact. It held that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that the double jeopardy claim failed because the administrative sanctions were not punitive in nature.

business & regulatorycivil rightsprocedurecriminal law

The case involved a restaurant challenging the IRS's use of an aggregate method to calculate and assess the employer's share of FICA taxes on unreported tips received by its employees, rather than determining the tax liability for each employee individually. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, holding that the IRS's aggregate assessment method was not permitted under the relevant FICA statutes. The reasoning centered on interpreting Section 3121(q) in conjunction with other FICA provisions, which the court found require individual employee assessments, supported by the structure of the FICA system and legislative history, despite giving deference to the agency's interpretation under Chevron.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involved claims by Western Parcel Express (WPX) against United Parcel Service (UPS) alleging violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act through monopolization and attempted monopolization via predatory pricing, as well as illegal restraints on trade from exclusive dealing contracts in the western U.S. regional small-package delivery market. The court granted UPS's motion for summary judgment on all remaining federal antitrust claims. It reasoned that WPX failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on the definition of the relevant market, UPS's market power or ability to recoup losses, the exclusivity of the contracts, or any antitrust injury to WPX, whose revenues had in fact increased substantially.

business & regulatory

In Sims v. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, a long-term bus driver sued his employer under the Family and Medical Leave Act after the employer suspended him for an unexcused absence caused by a back injury, alleging interference with his FMLA rights by denying leave without following statutory medical certification procedures. The court ruled that the employer could not later challenge the validity of the employee's initial medical certification in the civil action because it had not exercised its option to obtain second and third opinions within a reasonable time after receiving the certification. The court further held that the employer could not deny leave based on a minor deficiency in the certification without first notifying the employee of the issue and providing a reasonable opportunity to cure it. This conclusion follows from the FMLA's statutory scheme, under which a third medical opinion is binding and the employer's failure to timely invoke the optional verification process precludes subsequent disputes over the certification's validity.

labor & employmenthealthcare