Eugene F. Lynch

The case concerned whether damage to unsold wallpaper inventory caused by flood-induced moisture (without submersion) was covered under a federal flood insurance policy. Plaintiffs, store owners, sued the insurer for denying their claim following a 1995 flood. The court ruled that the loss was compensable as a direct physical loss by or from flood under the policy terms, granting summary judgment on liability for breach of contract but denying it on bad faith and damages. The reasoning centered on the policy's coverage for proximate flood damage and inapplicability of the moisture exclusion clause.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a qui tam action brought by a union and individual workers against a construction company under the federal and California False Claims Acts, alleging that the defendants submitted false claims for payment on federally funded projects by misrepresenting wages, hours, and worker classifications, among other violations related to the Davis-Bacon Act. The court granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing without prejudice the claims based on worker misclassification because such disputes fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and cannot form the basis of an FCA claim without prior resolution there. However, the court denied dismissal of the remaining FCA allegations involving misreporting of actual wages paid and hours worked, as these do not require classification determinations. The court also denied the motion to dismiss the union as a plaintiff, holding that there was no public disclosure of the allegations through the statutorily specified channels that would trigger the FCA's jurisdictional bar.

labor & employmentprocedurefederal power

Plaintiffs, former UCSF scientists, sued the University Regents, Salutar, and its parent over the assignment of their MRI-related invention (the '744 Patent) under employment Patent Agreements, the University's exclusive licensing of it to Salutar for a $25,000 lump sum, and related claims including breach of contract for failing to secure running royalties, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, tortious interference, and a §1983 civil rights violation, while also seeking a declaratory judgment that they were sole inventors. The court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their breach claim and granted the University's cross-motion for summary judgment on all claims except the inventorship declaration, holding that the Patent Agreement gave the University discretion over licensing terms rather than mandating a royalty-bearing non-exclusive license, that mandate law barred contract claims against the public university, and that plaintiffs failed to show evidence of fraud, unilateral mistake, or other torts. The court certified the contract interpretation issue for interlocutory appeal.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Darlene Carter sued the Building Material and Construction Teamsters Union Local 216, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and individual defendants in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging employment-related claims including violations of Title VII. She mailed courtesy copies of the complaint to the defendants in November 1995 with a letter noting that formal service would follow, and the defendants were formally served in February 1996. The defendants then filed a notice of removal to federal court on March 18, 1996, which the plaintiff moved to remand as untimely. The court granted the motion to remand, holding that under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) the thirty-day removal period begins upon a defendant's receipt of the initial pleading through service or otherwise, which occurred when the defendants received the courtesy copies in November 1995, and following the plain language of the statute as interpreted by several circuit courts.

procedurelabor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved defendants charged under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act with conspiring to possess and distribute tens of tons of hashish aboard a vessel on the high seas, after part of the load was offloaded toward North America. On remand from the Ninth Circuit, the district court addressed unresolved questions about the required 'nexus' between the defendants' conduct and the United States as a matter of due process. The court ruled that nexus is an issue for the court to decide, not the jury, and must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence; it defined nexus as a sufficient connection between the criminal conduct and the United States to justify U.S. prosecution of its interests. After an evidentiary hearing, the court found that evidence of the conspiracy's U.S. ties, including involvement of U.S. participants and plans touching U.S. territory, established the required nexus for both defendants.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a consolidated securities class action against Media Vision Technology alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with stock and debenture purchases. Plaintiffs' counsel sought reimbursement of approximately $797,000 in costs and expenses from a $1 million partial settlement fund, along with reservation of remaining funds for future litigation against non-settling defendants. The district court reviewed and adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations on allowable expenses, referring the matter back for specific calculations of awards to each firm while denying or discounting items such as excessive travel, meals, and first-class accommodations. The core reasoning rests on equitable principles from common fund doctrine allowing reasonable cost recovery, combined with statutory limits under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and the need for detailed documentation to ensure expenses are necessary and not excessive. The court further ordered pre-approval for future unusual expenditures like extensive travel or nonlegal experts and required all applications to break down costs with explanations of necessity.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a wastewater management agency suing pipe manufacturers for negligence and strict products liability after discovering that the coal tar enamel lining in a pipeline had detached, leading to corrosion risks. The plaintiff sought damages between $10 million and $30 million for repairs or replacement. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that under California law, claims for purely economic damages are not recoverable in negligence, and strict liability does not apply in commercial transactions between parties of equal bargaining power who could negotiate risk allocation.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In this bankruptcy case, the United States on behalf of HUD sought a stay pending appeal of a bankruptcy court order confirming a Chapter 11 reorganization plan for Capital West Investors, a single-asset debtor owning a multifamily housing project; the plan modified terms of the first deed of trust note insured by HUD, including elimination of mortgage insurance requirements and changes to interest rates and junior liens. The district court denied the motion for a stay as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d). The court reasoned that Rule 62(d) entitles an appellant to such a stay only upon posting a supersedeas bond in appeals from money judgments or their equivalents, subject to narrow exceptions in Rule 62(a) for injunctions, receiverships, or patent accounting orders, and that a plan confirmation order altering deed of trust terms does not qualify as a money judgment. The issue was one of first impression in the Ninth Circuit, and the court rejected arguments that the United States or its agencies receive automatic stays in this context without a bond.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

This case arose from a bankruptcy proceeding that began under Chapter 11 and converted to Chapter 7, involving competing claims to retention monies withheld by the Maritime Administration under ship repair contracts with debtor Donco Industries. The United States, on behalf of MARAD, sought a declaratory judgment allowing offset of those funds against prepetition claims held by other agencies such as the IRS, EPA, and under the False Claims Act. The court granted partial summary judgment to the United States on the setoff issue, ruling that mutuality does not exist between different government agencies for purposes of § 553 of the Bankruptcy Code. The core reasoning was that § 553 requires mutual debts between the same creditor and debtor under applicable nonbankruptcy law, and separate agencies are distinct creditors whose claims cannot be aggregated to permit setoff, consistent with the bankruptcy policy of equal distribution.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case concerns Shon Qi Lan, a Chinese citizen who entered the United States illegally in 1993 and applied for asylum and withholding of deportation based on a claimed well-founded fear of persecution under China's family planning policies, which can involve forced abortions or sterilizations. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the application following its precedent in Matter of Chang, which held that implementation of the one-child policy does not automatically constitute persecution on a protected ground. Lan then petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, citing conflicting executive orders, interim rules, and agency guidance on the issue. The court denied the petition, determining that the BIA's interpretation controlled and that Lan had not established eligibility under the applicable standards.

immigrationabortion

The case involves Jia-Hu Gao, a Chinese citizen who entered the United States illegally in 1993 and sought asylum and withholding of deportation based on fear of persecution under the PRC's family planning policies, including forced abortion and sterilization. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the application under its precedent in Matter of Chang, which held that implementation of the one-child policy does not itself constitute persecution on protected grounds. Gao petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that later executive orders, interim rules, and a 1993 Attorney General rule had superseded Chang. The court denied the petition, finding that the 1993 rule was never published in the Federal Register and thus never took effect, leaving Chang as the controlling authority under which Gao failed to establish eligibility.

immigrationabortionfederal power

This products liability case involves civilian employees at a naval weapons station who allege personal injuries from exposure to toxic fumes leaking from missile canisters manufactured by defendant Martin-Marietta Corporation. The plaintiffs sued on theories of negligence and strict liability. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the government contractor defense, finding unresolved factual issues about the precision of government specifications and the conformity of the canisters to those specifications. It also denied summary judgment on causation due to disputed facts about which canisters leaked the fumes. However, the court granted summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claims for fear of cancer damages, as they provided no evidence of a verifiable physical injury linked to cancer or meeting the required legal threshold under California law.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

In Ellison v. Kopstein (In re Kopstein), a bankruptcy appeal, the district court reviewed the bankruptcy court's order avoiding a judicial lien held by creditor Monty Ellison on debtor Emanuel Z. Kopstein's residence at 3499 Paradise Drive in Tiburon, California. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's February 28, 1994 order, determining that the lien recorded on December 4, 1989, should not be avoided. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court had clearly erred in its decision to avoid the lien.

propertyprocedure

Edgar Hendricks was convicted in state court of robbery, burglary, and two counts of first-degree murder with special circumstances and sentenced to death after confessing to multiple killings. He sought federal habeas relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in both the guilt and penalty phases of his trial under the Sixth Amendment. The court denied relief as to the conviction, finding that trial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision not to pursue a diminished capacity or insanity defense and instead challenge premeditation based on the confession. The court granted relief from the death sentence, determining that counsel's failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence about Hendricks's background, mental health, and family history in the penalty phase fell below professional standards and prejudiced the outcome under Strickland v. Washington.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, a death row inmate at San Quentin sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming retaliation for filing administrative grievances, including the alleged breaking of his television and the issuance of false disciplinary reports that led to the permanent loss of the television. The court granted summary judgment to defendants on claims for injunctive relief regarding legal mail and excessive force but denied it on the three retaliation claims. The core dispute was whether filing inmate grievances constitutes constitutionally protected activity under the First Amendment right to petition the government. The court held that it does, as the right to petition extends to such filings, allowing the plaintiff to proceed by showing the grievances were a substantial motivating factor in the adverse actions, with defendants able to rebut by proving the actions would have occurred anyway.

criminal lawcivil rightsfree speech

This case involves claims by a homeowners association against developers and a failed savings bank (now under RTC receivership) for construction defects in a condominium project, along with related crossclaims for indemnity based on a joint venture agreement and a settlement agreement. The RTC moved for summary judgment, arguing that the D’Oench, Duhme doctrine and 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e) barred reliance on those side agreements because they did not meet strict recordation requirements. The court denied the motion, holding that the doctrine and statute do not apply to prevent assertion of the agreements in this context. The reasoning focused on the limited scope of the protections, which target secret agreements affecting a bank's loan portfolio rather than ordinary business dealings or claims like negligence and indemnity.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved investors holding fractional interests in deeds of trust secured by a ground lease on property leased to debtor Argonaut Financial Services, which had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court ruled that the 60-day period under 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(4) for assuming or rejecting the lease had expired without the lease being included in extension motions, resulting in automatic rejection. On appeal, the district court reversed, holding that the statute could not operate against the investors without prior notice of the bankruptcy proceedings, as this would deprive them of protected property interests without due process. The court further noted that excusable neglect under bankruptcy rules could allow consideration of late filings in appropriate circumstances, distinguishing it from general equitable powers under § 105.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

This case involves the distribution of assets in a receivership established after the Commodities Futures Trading Commission intervened in the operations of Richwell International, Ltd., an illegal commodities trading firm. The court considered objections to the receiver's proposed distribution plan from certain customers seeking to include profits, a former employee claiming trust accounts, and the CFTC advocating for a full rescission and restitution approach. Ultimately, the court adopted the receiver's plan, which first pays administrative expenses, then distributes customer property pro rata based on the lesser of current account balances or net deposits, followed by restitution-based distributions to past and present customers and other priorities. The core reasoning was that the plan equitably tracks investor expectations, avoids recognizing profits from the illegal operation, reduces litigation risks, and aligns with Bankruptcy Code principles for commodity brokers.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a hospital's challenge to the denial of Medicare reimbursement adjustments for fiscal year 1982 under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act. The court granted the Secretary of Health and Human Services' motion for summary judgment, affirming the PRRB's determination that it lacked jurisdiction over the hospital's appeal from a reopened and revised notice of program reimbursement. The core reasoning was that the hospital did not satisfy the statutory prerequisites for PRRB review, including timely filing of a proper appeal on the exception request or the specific cost report revisions, and that the reopening did not automatically confer jurisdiction over unrelated issues from the original determination.

healthcareprocedurefederal power

This case involved a defamation lawsuit by Jeffrey Masson against author Janet Malcolm and The New Yorker, claiming that fabricated quotations in a published profile injured his reputation. After a jury trial, the jury found five quotations false and defamatory, determined that Malcolm acted with actual malice on two of them and caused damages, but deadlocked on the amount of damages; it also concluded Malcolm was an independent contractor whose actions were not attributable to the magazine and that the magazine itself did not act with actual malice. In post-trial motions, the court performed an independent constitutional review of the evidence against the New Yorker, found insufficient proof of actual malice by that defendant, enforced the jury's findings in the magazine's favor, and determined that a new trial was required solely on the issue of damages as to Malcolm.

free speechtorts & liability