David F. Levi

The case arose after a fire started on private land when a tree struck a power line owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco, spreading to and burning over 4,000 acres of Stanislaus National Forest land; the United States sued to recover firefighting costs and damages under state negligence laws and several federal statutes. The district court granted San Francisco's motion to dismiss the claims based on the Raker Act of 1913, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. §§ 1733 and 1765), and federal common law, while denying the motion as to the state-law negligence, California Civil Code, Health and Safety Code, and 16 U.S.C. § 551 claims. The court reasoned that the dismissed federal statutes and regulations apply only to conduct occurring on public lands within the national forest or park and do not reach negligent acts on private property that cause downstream damage to federal timber. The surviving claims proceed because they rest on state tort and statutory liability principles that are not limited to public-land activities.

environmentfederal powerpropertytorts & liability

In Fogel v. Grass Valley Police Department, the plaintiff painted a provocative message on his van declaring himself a suicide bomber with weapons of mass destruction and parked it publicly, prompting an anonymous report to police that led to his arrest under California Penal Code sections prohibiting threats and false bomb reports, although no charges were filed. The plaintiff sued the police department and officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, plus state-law claims for false arrest and assault and battery. The court granted summary judgment to all defendants and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, holding that the message was a true threat unprotected by the First Amendment because a reasonable person would foresee it being interpreted as a serious expression of intent to harm, that probable cause supported the arrest and impoundment, and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court further ruled that the department could not be held liable under Monell absent evidence of an unconstitutional official policy.

free speechcriminal lawcivil rights

This civil forfeiture case involved funds seized from a bank account tied to Red Rock's scheme of selling illegal cable descramblers, which the government sought to forfeit as proceeds of unlawful activity under 18 U.S.C. § 981. North American Bancard (NAB), a credit card processing intermediary, filed a claim for a portion of the funds to cover chargebacks from customers who disputed purchases from Red Rock. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss NAB's verified claim. It held that NAB lacked Article III standing because it had no secured interest in the specific seized property and failed to qualify as an innocent owner under 18 U.S.C. § 983(d), as its interest arose after the criminal conduct and seizure.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

The case involved a third-grade student with autism, Alex G., and his parents suing the Davis Joint Unified School District and its officials under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for alleged discrimination and retaliation related to his special education services, behavior intervention plans, and use of physical restraints. The plaintiffs challenged the district's handling of Alex's behavioral issues and educational placement following a settlement agreement under the IDEA. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence to support the claims of discrimination or retaliation, including no direct evidence of retaliatory motive and that certain actions were not adverse or lacked causal connection.

civil rightsprocedure

In Berman v. Central Intelligence Agency, a political science professor filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act seeking two President's Daily Briefs from the Lyndon B. Johnson administration that the CIA had withheld. The CIA denied the request primarily under FOIA Exemption 3 in conjunction with the National Security Act's protections for intelligence sources and methods, and also invoked the presidential communications privilege under Exemption 5. The court granted summary judgment to the CIA, finding that disclosure could reveal sensitive intelligence information and that the agency's judgment on national security risks was entitled to substantial deference, even for documents from the 1960s. The court further held that the PDBs qualified as deliberative presidential communications not subject to disclosure.

free speechfederal powerprocedure

The case involved environmental groups challenging the U.S. Forest Service's approval of several logging projects without sufficiently involving the public in preparing environmental assessments (EAs) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Plaintiffs argued that scoping notices and comment periods provided inadequate information and opportunity for input before the EAs and findings of no significant impact were finalized. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that the Forest Service violated NEPA by not circulating draft EAs or allowing practicable public involvement in the process. The projects were enjoined from proceeding until the agency conducts a compliant environmental review.

environmentprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether a workers’ compensation insurance policy issued by AMPICO to Omne Staffing, Inc. provided coverage for claims by employees leased to MV Transportation under a contract with the related but separate entity Omne Leasing Services, Inc. MV Transportation sought coverage and a defense from AMPICO after Leasing failed to handle claims properly, while AMPICO and broker Wachovia moved for summary judgment on the contract, unjust enrichment, duty to defend, and negligence claims. The court granted AMPICO’s motion for summary judgment on all claims against it, denied MV Transportation’s cross-motion on the duty to defend, granted Wachovia’s motion on the negligent misrepresentation claim, and denied it on negligent procurement. The core reasoning was that the policy’s plain language unambiguously named only Staffing as the insured, with no indication that Leasing or MV Transportation was covered, and California law requires enforcing unambiguous policy terms without creating ambiguity.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved parents suing county social workers and police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after a warrantless entry and search of their home and the subsequent removal of their two children based on an anonymous tip regarding child neglect and abuse. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' motions in part and denied them in part, dismissing some defendants. The core reasoning focused on whether the search and removal were justified under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments without a warrant, considering issues of consent, exigent circumstances, and imminent danger to the children.

civil rightsfamily law

This case concerns a First Amendment challenge by a California dentist and the American Academy of Implant Dentistry to a state statute limiting advertising of dental specialty credentials to those recognized by the American Dental Association or the Dental Board of California. The plaintiffs sought to advertise credentials in implant dentistry awarded by the AAID and its certifying board. Building on a prior ruling that struck down an earlier version of the restriction, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and held the statute unconstitutional. The court reasoned that the advertising was not inherently or actually misleading because the credentials were awarded by a bona fide organization under verifiable standards, and that the law was more extensive than necessary to serve the state's interest in preventing consumer deception.

free speechhealthcare

The case involved a student with autism and his parents suing a school district and its staff under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for alleged failures in his special education program, including unauthorized physical restraint, retaliation, and related state tort claims, after partial success in administrative hearings and a settlement agreement. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the IDEA claim against the Board of Trustees with prejudice, the § 1983 claim enforcing the IDEA with prejudice on the ground that the statute's comprehensive enforcement scheme is incompatible with § 1983 actions, and the state tort claim without prejudice due to declining supplemental jurisdiction. It also dismissed the § 1983 retaliation claim without prejudice for failure to identify a specific constitutional or statutory right violated. The core reasoning centered on the exclusivity of IDEA remedies, limits on using § 1983 for statutory enforcement, and discretionary decisions regarding supplemental jurisdiction over novel state-law issues.

civil rightsfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

This case involved Hmong residents with limited English proficiency suing the City of Chico under the Equal Protection Clause, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Fair Housing Act, and related state laws, seeking to compel the police department to provide interpreters during interactions with non-English-speaking crime victims. The dispute arose from a 2001 altercation where police responded without an interpreter after English-speaking family members communicated the facts, leading to an arrest, though plaintiffs alleged inadequate services in follow-up encounters. The court granted summary judgment to the municipal defendants on all claims, concluding that no intentional discrimination was shown and that language barriers alone do not constitute a suspect classification warranting strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. The court applied rational basis review, found the police response adequate given the circumstances and lack of any interpreter request, and stayed claims against the individual defendant pending related state proceedings.

civil rightscriminal law

The case concerned the Pit River Tribe's challenge to decisions by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service approving geothermal leases and a proposed power plant project by Calpine Corporation on federal lands near Medicine Lake, California, an area the Tribe considers sacred. The Tribe and co-plaintiffs sought to invalidate the leases under NEPA, NHPA, the Geothermal Steam Act, NFMA, the APA, and federal trust obligations to the Tribe. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment by reviewing the agencies' environmental assessments, EIS documents, lease extensions, and consistency with forest plans. The core reasoning examined whether the project complied with statutory requirements for environmental review, plan consistency, and protection of tribal religious uses, finding that earlier casual-use approvals had limited impacts and later consultations addressed development concerns.

environmentreligious libertyfederal power

The case involves environmental organizations challenging the Secretary of the Interior's issuance of an incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act for the Metro Air Park development project near Sacramento International Airport, which would convert agricultural lands into commercial and industrial uses affecting the Giant Garter Snake and Swainson's Hawk. Plaintiffs contended that the Habitat Conservation Plan failed to ensure adequate funding for mitigation measures and did not mitigate impacts to the maximum extent practicable. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, upholding the permit and finding the plan's 0.5:1 mitigation ratio, off-site habitat acquisition, and funding mechanisms through fees and bonds sufficient. It reasoned that the agency's interpretation of statutory requirements warranted Chevron deference, the current site provided minimal habitat value, and internal agency disagreements or comparisons to other plans did not render the decision arbitrary or capricious.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

In Clayworth v. Bonta, Medi-Cal providers and beneficiaries challenged California's planned 5% across-the-board reduction in reimbursement rates for Medicaid providers, seeking a preliminary injunction on grounds that the cut violated the Medicaid statute's requirements for quality of care and equal access. The court first addressed threshold issues, ruling that beneficiaries and providers had standing and a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce fee-for-service rate provisions, though not provisions governing managed care plans. On the merits, the court granted the injunction as to fee-for-service rates, finding the reduction arbitrary because the state legislative process included no considered determination that the rates would maintain quality and access in light of provider costs, contrary to Ninth Circuit precedent requiring such analysis before rate changes. The court noted that other cost-reduction methods, such as eliminating optional services, would not implicate the same federal requirements.

healthcarefederal power

The case concerns plaintiffs, including card rooms and charities, who sued the Secretary of the Interior to block taking land in San Pablo, California, into trust for the Lytton Rancheria to enable class II tribal gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Plaintiffs argued that Lytton was not a properly recognized tribe, that the arrangement violated federal gaming laws, and that it denied them equal protection. Defendants, including intervenors the City of San Pablo and Lytton, moved to dismiss, while plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction. The court determined that the core question of Lytton's tribal recognition could not be resolved on the existing record and motions, reviewed the rancheria's history of termination under the California Rancheria Act, its restoration via a 1991 settlement, and a 2000 congressional directive to take the land into trust, and analyzed IGRA requirements for gaming on newly acquired lands without reaching a final merits ruling.

federal powercivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

This case is a qui tam action under the False Claims Act in which relator Ila Swan alleged that defendant Covenant Care falsified patient records at its Emerald Gardens nursing home to conceal chronic understaffing and inadequate care, thereby supporting fraudulent Medicare reimbursement claims. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant. It reasoned that the public disclosure bar applied because substantially similar allegations of understaffing and record falsification had been raised in a prior civil lawsuit involving the same facility, and that Swan failed to establish a viable theory of FCA liability under the false records provision because the falsified ADL forms were not shown to have been directly tied to the submission of claims for government payment.

criminal lawhealthcare

The case involved California card clubs and charities challenging tribal gaming compacts authorized by Proposition 1A and entered under IGRA, which permitted Indian tribes to conduct high-stakes class III gaming such as slot machines while state law barred the plaintiffs from offering similar games. The court held that it had jurisdiction over most claims against state and federal defendants and ruled that the compacts and Proposition 1A complied with IGRA and the Constitution. It reasoned that the statutory language requiring a state to "permit" class III gaming is satisfied when permission is granted to tribes, and that the resulting tribal monopoly reflects a political rather than racial classification that is rationally related to Congress's trust obligations to Indian tribes.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatorycivil rightsfederal power

The case involved a lawsuit by the Secretary of Labor against a union local alleging that a candidate for Business Agent violated the union's election bylaw prohibiting campaigning or electioneering within 100 feet of the polling place during its December 2000 officer elections. The Secretary sought to nullify the election results for that position and require a new election. The court denied the Secretary's motion for summary judgment and granted the union's motion, upholding the results. The core reasoning was that the candidate's greetings and handshakes with voters did not amount to campaigning or electioneering under the bylaw's terms, that the union's reasonable interpretation of its own rules should be deferred to in the absence of any federal requirement for such a zone, and that stricter standards from other election contexts did not apply.

labor & employmentelections

Several nursing home operators (Horizon West) sued their insurer, St. Paul, for refusing to defend them in a qui tam False Claims Act suit that alleged submission of false Medicare and Medicaid claims for unprovided services and falsified records about care quality. St. Paul moved to dismiss, contending that the underlying claims did not fall within the professional liability coverage of the policies. The court granted the motion to dismiss, concluding that the FCA suit concerned ordinary billing and claims submission rather than the provision or failure to provide professional services. The court reasoned that the policy's coverage for professional services did not extend to the false-claims allegations, which were distinct from any issues of patient care quality.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

This case stems from the 1999 fatal shooting of Donald Venerable, Jr. by Sacramento police officers responding to a domestic dispute, after a taser attempt failed; his family members sued the city, police chief, and the officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for civil rights violations including a Monell claim, plus a state wrongful death action. The court denied the motion to dismiss on standing grounds, holding that the decedent's mother could pursue a wrongful death claim if she proved dependency under Cal. Civ. P. Code § 377.60(b), that his children could bring survival actions, and that the parents stated a substantive due process claim based on their liberty interest in familial companionship with sufficient allegations of reckless disregard. It also addressed the survival of the decedent's pain and suffering damages under § 1983, noting potential inconsistency with state law limits in Cal. Civ. P. Code § 377.34 but leaving the issue partially unresolved, while denying plaintiffs' separate motion to file a second amended complaint.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability