Consuelo Bland Marshall

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

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

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

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

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

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

This case concerned a facial First Amendment challenge by organizations representing day laborers to a Redondo Beach municipal ordinance that banned standing on streets or sidewalks to solicit employment, business, or contributions from vehicle occupants and prohibited drivers from stopping to hire such individuals. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief after the city began aggressive enforcement through sting operations targeting day laborers at specific intersections. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court first addressed and affirmed the plaintiffs' standing to bring the suit. It then examined whether the ordinance constituted a content-based restriction on speech in traditional public forums or an overbroad content-neutral regulation, analyzing its purpose, justification, and application to determine the applicable level of scrutiny under First Amendment precedents.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employment

The case involved a disabled condominium owner and a housing rights organization suing a homeowners association for allegedly failing to provide an accessible parking space as a reasonable accommodation. The plaintiff claimed violations of the Fair Housing Amendments Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Unruh Act, and related laws based on the association's parking policies and services. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the ADA claim but denied both sides' motions on all other claims. The core reasoning was that the ADA claim could be resolved on legal grounds while genuine disputes of material fact remained as to whether the parking arrangements constituted adequate accommodation under the other statutes.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

This case concerns a federal habeas corpus petition filed by a state prisoner challenging his 1986 guilty plea to first-degree burglary on grounds that the plea was involuntary, the trial court improperly denied his motion to withdraw it, and he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's revised report and recommendation, overruling the petitioner's objections to allowing the respondent to raise affirmative defenses such as statute of limitations and laches. The court denied the respondent's motion to dismiss and directed the filing of an answer addressing both the merits and those defenses. The core reasoning was that a motion to dismiss is not a pleading under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, so the failure to raise affirmative defenses in it does not constitute a waiver.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, present and former employees of Starwood Hotels filed a class action in California state court alleging violations of state labor laws for failure to provide proper meal and rest breaks under collective bargaining agreements, as well as related waiting time penalties. The defendant removed the case to federal court, arguing that the claims were preempted by Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act because they required interpretation of the CBAs. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand, holding that federal question jurisdiction was absent under the well-pleaded complaint rule since the complaint asserted only independent state-law rights and any preemption argument constituted a defense that could not support removal. The court further reasoned that the LMRA does not preempt claims based on state rules establishing rights independent of the labor contract, and mere consultation of the CBAs does not trigger preemption.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Butler v. Target Corp., musicians Ishmael Butler, Maryann Vieira, and Craig Irving sued Target after the company used their signature song and recording 'Rebirth of Slick (Cool like Dat)' by Digable Planets, along with altered lyrics and prominent vocal elements, in national commercials and in-store advertising without consent, in violation of collective bargaining agreements. The plaintiffs asserted claims for infringement of the right of publicity, violation of the Lanham Act, breach of contract, and unfair business practices. The court granted in part and denied in part Target's motion to dismiss, holding that the Copyright Act preempted the right of publicity, Lanham Act, and unfair business practices claims as to the use of the recording in the commercials because the song and recording fell within the subject matter of copyright and the asserted rights were equivalent to those under federal copyright law, but the claims survived as to the in-store advertising and signage. The court denied the plaintiffs' request for certification of an interlocutory appeal, finding no substantial ground for difference of opinion on the preemption issues.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a pension trust that purchased WorldCom bonds and sued underwriters, officers, directors, and auditors under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 after WorldCom's bankruptcy. The defendants removed the case to federal court, citing its relation to the bankruptcy proceedings, and sought a stay pending multidistrict litigation transfer, while the plaintiff moved to remand or have the court abstain. The court denied the remand and abstention motions, finding federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 because potential indemnification claims against WorldCom could affect the bankruptcy estate, and Section 1452 permits removal despite the Securities Act's general bar on removal. It also granted the stay to allow consolidation in the MDL proceeding, noting no parallel state action existed for abstention and that removal propriety is assessed at the time of filing.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Samuel Gart against Logitech, Inc., concerning Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 4,862,165, which covers an ergonomically shaped computer mouse designed to reduce hand fatigue. Logitech moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claim was invalid because it was anticipated or rendered obvious by earlier handpiece devices from the 1970s Autocom project for users with cerebral palsy. The court denied the motion, holding that Logitech failed to meet its burden of proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. Specifically, the defendant did not adequately address all elements of the claim, such as the housing requirement, or apply the Graham factors to show obviousness in adapting the prior art to computer input devices.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the Federal Trade Commission suing Medicor LLC and its principals Andrew Rubin and Matthew Rubin under Sections 5(a) and 13(b) of the FTC Act for deceptive marketing of an electronic medical claims processing package sold to consumers for about $359. The FTC alleged material misrepresentations regarding potential earnings from home-based medical billing work, arrangements with doctors, and the company's refund policy. The court granted the FTC's motion for summary judgment against all defendants, finding no genuine issues of material fact after reviewing deposition testimony, declarations, and admissions, and holding the defendants jointly and severally liable for disgorgement of $16,562,364.51 based on net consumer losses. The ruling rested on evidence that the misrepresentations were made in the course of business and that the FTC's damage calculations reasonably approximated customer harms after accounting for refunds.

business & regulatory

In Riggs v. Fairman, the petitioner was prosecuted for shoplifting a bottle of vitamins and rejected a pretrial plea offer for a five- or six-year sentence, resulting in a 25-years-to-life term under California's Three Strikes Law based on his prior robbery convictions from a single case. The federal habeas petition alleged ineffective assistance of counsel because the petitioner and his attorney did not understand that multiple counts from the prior case could be charged as separate strikes, preventing an informed evaluation of the plea. The magistrate judge's report, adopted by the district court, determined that counsel's performance fell below professional standards, causing prejudice, and that the state courts' denial of relief was unreasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The court therefore granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus, ordering the petitioner's release unless the state retries him within ninety days.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns Pacific Bell Telephone Company's challenge to ordinances and fee resolutions adopted by the City of Hawthorne that require telecommunications providers to submit detailed information, maintain records for audits, and pay various permit, application, and franchise fees for using public streets and rights-of-way. Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming the measures violate and are preempted by Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 under federal question jurisdiction and the Supremacy Clause. The court denied the city's motion to dismiss, ruling that Section 253 implies a private right of action for providers based on statutory construction factors and that the fees qualify as regulatory charges rather than taxes, so neither the Tax Injunction Act nor federal-state comity principles barred jurisdiction. The decision rested on the fees' purpose to recover specific costs from a narrow class of entities rather than generate general revenue, and on congressional intent to preempt local barriers to telecommunications services.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by a state prisoner challenging his 1994 California convictions for robbery, attempted robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon, along with firearm enhancements, on grounds that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the elements of the personal firearm use enhancement and on lesser included offenses. The respondents moved to dismiss the petition as untimely under the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), which began running on April 24, 1996, for convictions that became final before AEDPA's enactment. The magistrate judge recommended denying the motion after finding that the petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling due to his attempt to file a prior federal petition and the seizure of his personal property by prison authorities, which prevented timely filing. The district court adopted the report and recommendation in full after de novo review, allowing the petition to proceed. The core reasoning centered on the application of AEDPA's tolling provisions and the specific factual circumstances supporting equitable relief from the limitations period.

criminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Campbell, defendant Brian Campbell, a personal injury attorney, faced federal charges for alleged fraud involving referral fees to cappers, inflated medical bills, and embezzlement from insurance settlements in staged auto accident cases as part of an FBI undercover operation. After stipulating to pretrial diversion, accepting responsibility, paying restitution, and completing community service, the indictment was dismissed in 2000. Campbell then filed omnibus post-dismissal motions seeking attorney's fees under the Hyde Amendment, grand jury materials, a bill of particulars, document inspection, exculpatory evidence, and sanctions against prosecutors. The district court denied all motions, ruling that the Hyde Amendment claim failed for lack of proof that the prosecution was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith, and that the remaining discovery and sanctions requests were either moot due to the dismissal or unsupported by evidence or authority.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by James Steven Ely challenging his 1996 California state conviction for second-degree burglary and resulting 25-years-to-life sentence under the Three Strikes law, based on two prior serious felony convictions. The petitioner raised four grounds for relief, including a claim that the trial court improperly instructed the jury not to consider sentencing, due process and equal protection violations related to the sentence for a "wobbler" offense and the Three Strikes law's application, and abuse of discretion in refusing to strike a prior conviction or reduce the offense to a misdemeanor. The district court, adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after de novo review, denied the petition and dismissed the action with prejudice. The court reasoned that certain claims were not cognizable in federal habeas proceedings, the jury instruction was proper and did not violate due process, and the sentencing challenges lacked merit under applicable precedents and were not subject to federal review.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves Educational Testing Service (ETS) suing defendants Simon and Bornstein, who operated test preparation courses for the MSAT exam under the name Best-Prep, alleging unauthorized use and disclosure of ETS's copyrighted test questions and forms. The court granted ETS's motion for summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction that bars the defendants from providing or attempting to provide candidates with nondisclosed MSAT or other ETS exam questions, subverting licensing examinations, or obtaining such questions without authorization, while also requiring advance review of any practice questions and notice to course enrollees about copyright protections. Core findings established that ETS owns the copyrights to the MSAT materials as works for hire or employee creations, registers them as secure tests, and relies on their reuse for equating and cost reasons, with the injunction also referencing California Business and Professions Code section 17203. The order allows general test-taking strategies and classroom responses but prohibits use of undisclosed questions, superseding prior preliminary injunctions.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure