AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
Living constitutionalismOriginalism
In the equal protection bench trial, the court required proof of discriminatory intent rather than disparate impact alone to establish a Fourteenth Amendment violation. L. Tarango Trucking v. County of… ↗
PurposivismTextualism
The court applied the plain terms of the Wiretap Act and ECPA to dismiss claims for failure to state a cause of action and declined supplemental jurisdiction over novel state issues. Crowley v. Cybersource Corp. ↗
In this class action lawsuit, minority-owned and women-owned business enterprises and their owners alleged that Contra Costa County and its Board of Supervisors intentionally discriminated against them in awarding public contracts, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Following a multi-day bench trial, the court entered judgment for the defendants. The court found that plaintiffs failed to prove discriminatory intent, noting that any disparate impacts did not establish a constitutional violation absent evidence that the County acted because of, rather than in spite of, adverse effects on these groups. The County had modified its outreach and reporting programs to comply with Proposition 209 and related court decisions while still assisting qualified MBE and WBE contractors within legal limits.
This case involves a private attorney general action under California's Unfair Competition Act (Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.) brought by plaintiff Isabel Mortera against North American Mortgage Company. Mortera sought to enjoin the company from charging allegedly unlawful fees to veterans participating in the federal VA Home Loan Guaranty Program and requested related relief, though she did not allege any personal injury or eligibility under the program. The case was removed to federal district court, prompting Mortera's motion to remand to state court. The court granted the remand, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Mortera failed to satisfy Article III standing requirements, which demand a showing of personal injury in fact that is traceable to the defendant's conduct and redressable by the relief sought. Although California law permits such suits without individualized injury, federal constitutional limits on jurisdiction do not.
This case is a putative class action in which plaintiff Crowley alleged that Amazon transmitted his personal and financial information to CyberSource for credit card verification during an online purchase, and that CyberSource stored the data to create personal profiles without consent, in violation of the Federal Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, along with various state-law claims. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the Wiretap Act claim against both parties and the ECPA claim against Amazon for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. It denied Amazon's motion to dismiss for improper venue based on a forum selection clause. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state claims and dismissed them without prejudice, noting that they raised novel issues of state tort law in the context of internet commerce.
In this case, plaintiff Sharon Meagher sued the United States for injuries from tripping on a coaming aboard the donated aircraft carrier HORNET, which the Navy had transferred to a nonprofit foundation for use as a museum; Meagher worked for the foundation and alleged negligence in the donation and lack of lighting or warnings. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that sovereign immunity barred the claim. The action fell under the Suits in Admiralty Act, but the discretionary function exception applied because the Navy's decision to donate the vessel "as-is, where-is" was a protected exercise of discretion; additionally, the United States lacked operational control over the vessel at the time of the accident.
This case involves thirty-two consolidated shareholder class actions against Critical Path, Inc., its officers and directors, and auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 through dissemination of materially misleading information about the company's future profitability from July 2000 to February 2001. The court consolidated the actions pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), which requires specific notice, certification, and lead plaintiff appointment steps before trial preparation. It set the class period as October 20, 2000, through February 1, 2001, based on the scope of alleged misrepresentations in the complaints, and outlined the criteria for selecting a lead plaintiff, including financial interest in the recovery and compliance with Rule 23's typicality and adequacy requirements.
In this diversity action, plaintiff Linda Gonsalves sued Sunset Life Insurance Company for breach of contract after the insurer failed to notify her that a $500,000 life insurance policy on her ex-husband had lapsed for nonpayment of premiums. The policy's irrevocable beneficiary designation stemmed from the couple's 1992 marital settlement agreement, which assigned Gonsalves the beneficiary rights as security for specific debts. Although Sunset was found to have breached its contractual notice obligation, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to measure damages by the outstanding balances on those secured debts at the time of the ex-husband's death. On the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment regarding damages, the court struck as inadmissible the only evidence Gonsalves offered on the debt balances and granted summary judgment to Sunset because she had no admissible proof of her damages.
