District Court, C.D. California — appointed by Jimmy Carter
UNITED ALLOYS, INC. v. Baker
District Court, C.D. California · 2011-06-22 · cited 17×
This case concerns claims by United Alloys, Inc. against Flask Chemical Corporation for cost recovery and declaratory relief under CERCLA due to hazardous substance contamination at a commercial property in Los Angeles, along with Flask's counterclaims for contribution. Following multiple settlements with other defendants, bankruptcies, and dismissals of certain state-law and RCRA claims, the court held a bench trial to allocate liability and past investigation costs between the remaining parties. The court found jurisdiction under federal environmental statutes, reviewed witness testimony and exhibits on ownership history and contamination sources, and determined the scope of each party's responsibility for remediation expenses consistent with the National Contingency Plan. Core reasoning focused on CERCLA's strict liability provisions for potentially responsible parties and the evidence establishing the nature and extent of the contamination.
environmentpropertybusiness & regulatory
Peviani v. Hostess Brands, Inc.
District Court, C.D. California · 2010-11-03 · cited 16×
In this putative class action, plaintiff Victor Guttmann alleged that Hostess Brands, Inc. and related companies misled consumers by marketing six varieties of Hostess 100 Calorie Packs as containing "0 Grams of Trans Fat" despite the presence of partially hydrogenated oils, which the complaint described as artificial trans fats linked to various health risks; the suit asserted claims under the Lanham Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Missouri Merchandise Practices Act on behalf of purchasers in the United States. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint without leave to amend and granted in part their request for judicial notice. It dismissed the Lanham Act claim with prejudice for lack of standing, reasoning that the plaintiff was a consumer who purchased the products for personal use and alleged neither commercial nor competitive injury, as required for standing under the Lanham Act. The court did not reach the defendants' remaining arguments regarding the other claims because they were mooted by the dismissal.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Collier v. Brown
District Court, C.D. California · 2009-07-20
This case involves a state prisoner who filed a pro se civil rights action alleging that several prison officials at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison retaliated against him for filing grievances, in violation of his constitutional rights. The defendants moved for summary judgment, primarily arguing that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and that no retaliation occurred. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting summary judgment in part and denying it in part: it dismissed claims against several defendants for failure to exhaust or lack of evidence of retaliation, but found a possible genuine issue of material fact regarding one retaliation claim against Defendant Cortez related to an administrative segregation order. The court specified undisputed facts, dismissed some claims without prejudice and others with prejudice, and allowed the remaining claim to proceed.
civil rightscriminal lawprocedure
Hubbs v. County of San Bernardino, CA
District Court, C.D. California · 2008-02-07 · cited 13×
The case involves a pro se plaintiff, Norman Hubbs, a civilly committed sexually violent predator, who sued San Bernardino County and its sheriff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title II of the ADA for alleged constitutional violations during his detention at a county facility in connection with an SVP commitment hearing. The violations claimed included warrantless arrest and incarceration, denial of prescribed medications, inadequate holding cell conditions, and other issues related to his custody and treatment. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting in part and denying in part the defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss: claims barred by Heck v. Humphrey were dismissed without prejudice, one individual-capacity claim against the sheriff was dismissed, certain claims were dismissed with leave to amend, and others were allowed to proceed. The core reasoning relied on Heck's bar against § 1983 claims that would imply the invalidity of the underlying detention, along with standards for deliberate indifference to medical needs and ADA applicability to public entities.
civil rightsprocedure
Cosmos Jewelry Ltd. v. Po Sun Hon Co.
District Court, C.D. California · 2007-02-13 · cited 2×
This case involved Cosmos Jewelry suing jewelry designer Alan Hon and his company for copyright infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition, alleging that defendants sold jewelry copies of Cosmos's plumeria flower blossom designs. After a bench trial, the court found defendants liable only on the trade dress infringement claim under the Lanham Act and the unfair competition claim under California Business and Professions Code § 17200, but not on copyright. The core reasoning was that Cosmos's design featuring a stylized plumeria with a unique sand-blasted matte finish and high-polished edges was non-functional, distinctive, and had acquired secondary meaning in the market, while defendants willfully copied it to exploit that strength, as shown by evidence of their awareness and sales practices. The court awarded Cosmos $2,341,526.52 in damages, a permanent injunction, costs, and attorneys' fees.
business & regulatoryproperty
Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc.
District Court, C.D. California · 2006-06-07 · cited 24×
This case concerns claims by employees against their employer, Chinese Daily News, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor Code, and Business and Professions Code, primarily involving wage and hour issues. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on matters including the legality of the employer's vacation buy-back policy under vesting rules from cases like Suastez and Boothby, the adequacy of wage statements, reporters' entitlement to overtime pay and its calculation, and whether meal and rest breaks were properly provided. Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 standards, the court examined undisputed facts, policies capping vacation accrual, exemptions from overtime, and evidence regarding breaks and timekeeping to determine which issues could be resolved as a matter of law without trial. The opinion also touches on statute of limitations and remedies under section 226.7.
labor & employmentprocedure