Jeffrey T. Miller

The case involves plaintiff John Paul Micha, a gynecologic oncology surgeon, who sued Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and the Group Disability Benefits Plan after Sun Life denied his claim for long-term disability benefits following a heart attack and related symptoms that limited his ability to perform surgeries. The parties filed cross-motions asking the court to determine the proper scope of its review of the denial under ERISA. The court denied Sun Life's motion, granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's cross-motion, and ruled that review would be de novo but limited primarily to the administrative record. It admitted only a narrow set of additional documents, such as certain pre-denial records from Dr. Haskell and one independent medical exam, while excluding the rest of the proffered evidence for the time being, though it reserved the option to consider more later if needed.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

In Zepeda v. Uribe, a state prisoner filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a prison disciplinary conviction for participating in a riot, which resulted in sanctions after two inmate fights involving rival gangs. The magistrate judge recommended granting the petition after finding the evidence insufficient under the "some evidence" standard from Superintendent v. Hill, as the prison relied only on the petitioner's gang affiliation and his position on a schematic map without showing active participation, and the district judge adopted the recommendation in full. The court determined that the state appellate decision upholding the discipline involved an unreasonable application of Supreme Court law and an unreasonable factual determination. The petition was granted and the case closed.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, defendant Jose Luis Murguia-Marquez faced charges under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 for attempted reentry after deportation after presenting himself at U.S. ports of entry in 2009. He moved to dismiss the charges by collaterally attacking his prior 2007 removal order, arguing that immigration proceedings violated due process because he was not advised of his eligibility for voluntary departure. The court denied the motion to dismiss. Although the proceedings were found to have deprived the defendant of due process, the court concluded that he suffered no prejudice because the immigration judge's denial of cancellation of removal made it implausible that voluntary departure would have been granted given the defendant's criminal record and other adverse factors.

immigrationcriminal law

This ERISA case involved a widow's claim for a $250,000 accidental death benefit under her employer's group accident policy after her husband died in a 2006 motorcycle crash. The insurer denied the claim, arguing the death was not an "accident" because it resulted from foreseeable conduct—driving at high speed (estimated 90 MPH) while intoxicated (BAC around 0.05-0.10%). The court granted judgment for the plaintiff, finding that the collision and death qualified as an accident under ERISA common law since the outcome was not substantially certain to occur, and no policy exclusions applied.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves several RadioShack franchisees suing the company over alleged breaches of their franchise agreements and related claims. The plaintiffs asserted nine claims, including multiple breach of contract counts regarding provisions on area of primary responsibility, temporary franchise costs, minimum purchase requirements, and good faith and fair dealing, plus tort claims for interference with economic relations, Lanham Act violations, and unfair competition. The court granted RadioShack's motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, while denying it as to claims 2, 3, and 4; it also granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on claim 2 and ruled on various affirmative defenses and the availability of exemplary damages. The decisions rested on contract interpretation, the statute of limitations barring older claims, the absence of independent torts to support exemplary damages, and the lack of evidence supporting the dismissed claims.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involves a state prisoner suing four prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights after he filed a grievance about denied law library access and prepared a small claims suit; the officials responded by charging him with extortion, placing him in administrative segregation, and later transferring him. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the motion be granted in part and denied in part, and after de novo review of objections the district court adopted the report and recommendations in full, resulting in dismissal of some claims while allowing others to proceed based on whether the complaint stated plausible claims for relief.

civil rightsprocedure

In this case, homeowners Ernesto and Araceli Ortiz sued U.S. Bank (as assignee of their mortgage lender) over alleged violations in their 2006 home loan and subsequent foreclosure notices, asserting claims under the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) for inadequate disclosures, California's Perata Mortgage Relief Act, Foreign Language Contract Act, Unfair Business Practices Act, and a cause of action to quiet title. The court granted U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The TILA claim was dismissed with prejudice as time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations, with no basis for equitable tolling shown on the face of the pleadings. The state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice because they either lacked a private right of action, failed to allege sufficient facts, or depended on the dismissed predicate claims. Plaintiffs were granted 30 days to file a second amended complaint.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves purchasers of condominium units in a San Pedro, California development who filed a purported class action in the Southern District of California against the developer and related entities, asserting federal claims under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act and Sherman Act along with state-law claims for fraud, unfair competition, and breach of contract. Defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) or, alternatively, to transfer the action to the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), while also seeking to compel arbitration. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that venue was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events occurred in the district and defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction there, but granted the transfer motion. The core reasoning was that all named plaintiffs and defendants reside in the Central District, the property and operative events are located there, nearly all putative class members reside there, and transfer would promote convenience for parties and witnesses as well as judicial efficiency.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves Wilhelm Straube, a Guatemalan native detained by federal immigration authorities since 2004 after unlawful entry in 1976 and multiple criminal convictions, who filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the length and validity of his prolonged detention pending removal proceedings. The court partially granted the petition and ordered respondents to provide a bail hearing within 60 days before an immigration judge, who could release him unless the government showed he was a flight risk or danger to the community. The core reasoning was that the over-four-year detention exceeded the presumptively reasonable six-month period from Zadvydas v. Davis, removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future given abeyance of the Ninth Circuit appeal and ongoing BIA proceedings, and the detention was not voluntary on the petitioner's part.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

In this SEC enforcement action, the court addressed claims that Platforms Wireless and its officers made false and misleading statements in multiple press releases about product development, sales projections, and contracts to influence the company's stock price, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. After initially granting summary judgment on most claims, the court reconsidered the rulings on the scienter element using the deliberate recklessness standard and supplemental briefing. The court affirmed summary judgment against defendants Martin and Platforms based on the August 23, 2000 press release but vacated summary judgment against Martin, Platforms, Draper, Perry, and Platforms regarding the May 15, 2000, September 19, 2000, and March 8, 2001 press releases due to insufficient evidence of the required mental state under the correct standard.

business & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Darla Myers sued defendant S & P Capital Investments, Inc. under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and California Business and Professions Code section 17200, alleging that S & P engaged in abusive debt collection tactics by threatening legal action, wage garnishment, and tax liability on a debt that had already been paid in full after the statute of limitations had expired, and by inaccurately reporting the debt to credit agencies. After S & P's counsel withdrew and the company failed to obtain new representation, the court struck its answer, entered default, and later granted the plaintiff's motion for default judgment. The court awarded $90,000 in compensatory damages, $2,000 in statutory damages, and $24,934.50 in attorney's fees, reasoning that the default established liability based on the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint and that the requested damages were supported by the egregious nature of the conduct and comparable case awards.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff who disputed a debt from a Direct TV service that appeared on his credit report as a collection account managed by defendant I.C. System, leading to claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and related state laws for declaratory and injunctive relief, rescission, and violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200. The court granted judgment on the pleadings to the defendants on the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act claims, finding them time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations and noting that the FDCPA does not apply to post-collection activities once a debt is paid or resolved. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims. The reasoning centered on the statutory definitions and time limits in the FDCPA, as well as the absence of ongoing federal questions to support jurisdiction.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a putative class action by consumers against debt collector Resurgent Capital Services alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California's Rosenthal Act. The claims center on letters and envelopes that prominently advertised pre-approved Visa credit cards while also referencing past-due debts, allegedly misleading recipients into treating the mail as junk and overlooking their rights to dispute the debt within 30 days. The court ruled on the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, granting it in part and denying it in part. The decision turned on whether the specific language and formatting could plausibly constitute false or deceptive collection methods or improperly overshadow the required statutory notices under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692f, and 1692g, with some claims allowed to proceed based on the allegations and incorporated exhibits.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a state prisoner filing a § 1983 action against correctional officers for allegedly seizing his television from his cell and inadequately responding to his administrative grievance, claiming violations of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The district court adopted in part and modified in part the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, ultimately granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in full. The court reasoned that the initial sua sponte screening order under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A did not preclude a later merits-based dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), that the plaintiff had not adequately pled a First Amendment retaliation claim, and that the Due Process claim failed because California law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for the alleged arbitrary property seizure. The dismissal was with leave to amend within forty-five days.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

The case involved the EEOC alleging that Hometown Buffet subjected female employees to sexual harassment creating a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. The defendant moved for partial summary adjudication arguing that the EEOC failed to fulfill its statutory duty to attempt conciliation before filing suit, while the EEOC cross-moved for a finding that it had met this requirement. The court denied the defendant's motion and granted the EEOC's, holding that the EEOC had provided sufficient notice of the charges and an opportunity to resolve them through conciliation, even if its efforts were not optimal, as the form of conciliation is within the EEOC's discretion and judicial review is limited to whether an opportunity to confront the issues was afforded.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This putative class action by senior citizens alleges that National Western Life Insurance Company (NWL) and its agents engaged in a scheme to defraud them by selling deferred annuities that were unsuitable due to their long maturity periods, inadequate disclosures, and post-purchase manipulations. The court ruled on NWL's motion to dismiss several claims from the consolidated complaint, including RICO violations, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, plus related state law claims under California law. It granted the motion in part by dismissing the RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), the good faith and fair dealing claim, and the out-of-state plaintiff's claims under California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 and 17500 without prejudice, while denying dismissal of the remaining claims. The core reasoning addressed preclusion under the McCarran-Ferguson Act for RICO, failure to adequately plead elements of certain claims, choice-of-law issues for non-California plaintiffs, and the absence of a private right of action under the Insurance Code.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedure

In United States v. Coronado, the defendant was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 842(p)(2)(A) for teaching and demonstrating the making of an incendiary device during a public lecture, with the alleged intent that the information further a federal crime of violence such as arson. Coronado moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the statute is facially overbroad in violation of the First Amendment and unconstitutionally vague. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the statute's requirement of specific intent to further a federal crime of violence sufficiently narrows its application to unprotected conduct rather than protected speech, that the statutory terms are sufficiently clear to provide notice, and that any as-applied constitutional challenges were premature without a developed factual record at trial.

criminal lawfree speech

In Hoxie v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In re Hoxie), a debtor who obtained a Chapter 7 discharge order in 1993 sued student loan creditors for civil contempt, alleging that their collection efforts violated the discharge because the loans had been discharged. The bankruptcy court dismissed the complaint, holding that student loans are presumptively nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8), that this provision is self-executing, and that the debtor had never initiated an adversary proceeding to obtain a discharge determination. The district court affirmed the dismissal after reviewing the record, concluding that the loans remained undischarged and collection was therefore lawful, while also resolving questions about the timeliness of the appeal under Bankruptcy Rule 8002.

procedure

The case involved claims by consumers against Gerber Products Company alleging that the labeling and advertising of its Fruit Juice Snacks product were deceptive because it featured images of fruits not contained in the product, claimed to be made with real fruit juice while containing mostly corn syrup and sugar, and other misleading statements. The court granted Gerber's motion to dismiss all eight causes of action, including violations of California's unfair competition and false advertising laws, misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and consumer legal remedies act, with prejudice and without leave to amend. The core reasoning was that none of the challenged statements or images would likely deceive a reasonable consumer as a matter of law, some constituted non-actionable puffery, and the type size for "Naturally Flavored" complied sufficiently with regulations.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involved a plaintiff who had been granted asylum and lawful permanent residency and sought to compel U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to process his naturalization application after delays for security background checks. The plaintiff filed a mandamus action under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b) after his interview, but the court granted the government's motion to dismiss. The court held that the plaintiff had signed a written waiver of the 120-day statutory adjudication deadline at his naturalization interview and that the period did not begin running until he later revoked the waiver, meaning the deadline had not yet expired. The court deferred to the agency's view that the statutory period could be waived and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

immigrationprocedure