William Horsley Orrick jr

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.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatory

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

criminal lawprocedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

family lawpropertyprocedure

This case is a consolidated securities fraud class action brought by shareholders against Vantive Corporation and its former executives under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, alleging that defendants made false statements about the company's products, sales force expansion, revenue forecasts, and financial results through premature revenue recognition on reseller licenses, enabling insider stock sales during the class period from April 1997 to July 1998. After the company disclosed worse-than-expected results, the stock dropped sharply. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the first consolidated amended complaint with prejudice after allowing amendments, denied motions to strike transcripts, and found the allegations insufficient under the PSLRA's heightened pleading standards for falsity and scienter, with many statements protected by safe harbor warnings or lacking contemporaneous facts showing they were false when made.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a third-party complaint by Pemco Aeroplex against the United States alleging negligence, negligent supervision, and negligent retention by the FAA and its employee Steven Fox in connection with the investigation and issuance of an airworthiness directive. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The court granted the motion, holding that the discretionary function exception to the FTCA applied because the challenged FAA actions involved elements of judgment or choice that were grounded in policy considerations rather than mandatory directives. The court determined that the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction but the government must show the exception applies, and it examined the specific alleged violations of FAA orders to conclude they did not remove the actions from discretionary status.

federal powertorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved plaintiff attorney V. Roy Lefcourt challenging in federal court the constitutionality of a state superior court contempt citation and $700 fine issued against him by Judge Richard Kramer for allegedly false statements in a declaration supporting a bail motion for his client. After pursuing unsuccessful appeals and writ petitions through the California Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, Lefcourt filed this federal action alleging due process and other constitutional violations. The district court dismissed the action with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred federal review of state court judgments because the claims were inextricably intertwined with the state contempt ruling and any constitutional issues had been or could have been raised in the state proceedings. The court also noted that res judicata provided an additional bar under California law.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

The case involves two related desegregation lawsuits against the San Francisco Unified School District: the NAACP action filed in 1978 seeking to desegregate schools under a 1983 Consent Decree with racial and ethnic enrollment guidelines, and the Ho action filed in 1994 by Chinese-American students challenging those guidelines as unconstitutional race discrimination. After the Ninth Circuit directed strict scrutiny review requiring evidence of ongoing vestiges of past discrimination, the parties reached a stipulated settlement to resolve the disputes. The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and adequate given the demographic changes and the need to end the litigation.

civil rights

This case was a class action securities fraud suit brought by investors against Sybase, Inc. and certain officers under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, alleging false and misleading statements about the company's software products (including bugs and connectivity issues with SQL Server 10 and Navigation Server) and overly optimistic earnings forecasts for the first quarter of 1995 that were not met. After years of discovery, the district court granted Sybase's motion for summary judgment in full and entered judgment for the defendants. The court found no admissible evidence that Sybase made the alleged false statements or that its public forecasts lacked a reasonable basis when made, noting that internal forecasts were responsibly lowered as facts developed, that guidance to investors was often more conservative than internal projections, and that product problems were already widely reported in industry publications.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns Robert Alberti, a deputy sheriff with learning disabilities who was required to complete a Basic Law Enforcement training course and requested accommodations such as untimed or oral testing, which the Sheriff's Department denied; after failing the course he was terminated and sued the Sheriff's Department, Santa Rosa Junior College, and Sonoma Junior College District under Titles I and II of the ADA and the California FEHA, alleging disability discrimination, harassment, and improper disclosure of his disability. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), contending that Alberti failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his Title I and FEHA claims, that Title II does not authorize employment discrimination suits, and that any Title II claim was time-barred. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that Title II covers employment practices of public entities, that the statute of limitations could be equitably tolled while Alberti pursued an administrative complaint with the Department of Justice, and that some claims could proceed or be amended while others were dismissed for lack of exhaustion.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involves John Gilmore's FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Energy seeking records on CLERVER conferencing technology, after the agency denied his 1993 request and appeal. Following partial summary judgment for the DOE on the specific records claim, the remaining dispute centers on Gilmore's allegation of the agency's pattern and practice of untimely FOIA responses, for which he seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. The court denied the DOE's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and standing, granted Gilmore's cross-motion for summary judgment on those issues, and declined to limit potential relief as premature. It reasoned that FOIA's jurisdictional grant under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) extends to claims of improper withholding via delays, even after a specific request is resolved, citing precedents like Payne Enterprises and Long v. IRS that recognize equitable authority to address ongoing violations.

free speechprocedure

This case involved shareholders, a former advisor, and related parties suing independent trustees of a mutual fund, their attorney, and a replacement advisor MFS over claims of breach of fiduciary duty under the Investment Company Act and state laws, plus negligence, corporate waste, and interference with economic relations, arising from the trustees' decision not to renew the original advisor's contract and attempts to install MFS. The court denied the independent trustees' motion to dismiss but granted the motions of MFS and the attorney with prejudice. It held that an implied private right of action exists under ICA § 36(a) based on congressional intent, but dismissed the remaining claims because the attorney owed no duty to the plaintiffs, MFS lacked control over the fund, and the other allegations failed to state viable causes of action.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

The case concerned a motion by the Bank of New York (BNY) to intervene in multiple related lawsuits and disqualify the law firm Mayer, Brown & Platt from representing GATX entities in disputes over allegedly defective designs for converting 747 passenger aircraft into cargo planes, which led the FAA to issue an Airworthiness Directive grounding the planes due to payload limits. BNY was a current client of the firm in other matters and held an interest in one of the affected aircraft, creating adverse positions in the same litigation. The court granted the motion to intervene, to consolidate for discovery, and to disqualify the firm from all related cases, reasoning that simultaneous representation of two current clients with conflicting interests in the same matter violated the duty of loyalty absent an informed written waiver.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this FOIA action, John Gilmore requested from the Department of Energy the CLERVER video conferencing software developed by a contractor, its source code, related documentation, and records explaining its limited licensing, intending to post them online; DOE denied the request on grounds that the materials were not agency records, not in its possession, or exempt as commercially valuable. The district court granted DOE's motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part while denying Gilmore's motion entirely. The court reasoned that FOIA jurisdiction requires showing improper withholding of agency records, applied judicial definitions of that term derived from legislative history and precedents like Forsham and Kissinger, and addressed Exemption 4 protections for confidential commercial information obtained from a person, ultimately determining that certain materials did not qualify for disclosure.

free speechfederal powerprocedure

This case was a purported class action by economy-class passengers against Virgin Atlantic Airways for a roughly 25-hour delay on an international flight from London to San Francisco, caused by a mechanical failure and fuel shortage that diverted the plane to Vancouver; passengers alleged they were confined on the tarmac and in a transit lounge before being required to overnight in Vancouver without alternate travel assistance. Plaintiffs brought claims under Article 19 of the Warsaw Convention for delay damages, plus state-law claims for breach of contract, negligence, false imprisonment, and negligent performance of contractual duties, seeking compensation for both economic losses and emotional distress. The court granted in part and denied in part Virgin's motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling that the Warsaw Convention applies to and limits all delay-related claims (preempting some but not all state causes of action), that pure emotional-distress damages are not recoverable under the Convention absent physical injury or other qualifying harm, and that plaintiffs must amend to clarify the nature of their alleged injuries.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves Sylvia Wasson, a long-time instructor at Santa Rosa Junior College, who sued the Sonoma County Junior College District and related officials after they sought to terminate her employment based on her alleged authorship of anonymous letters critical of the college president. Wasson asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of her First Amendment free speech rights, Fourteenth Amendment due process and privacy protections, and other constitutional provisions, along with various state law claims including breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and emotional distress. The district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, dismissing with prejudice claims barred by the Eleventh Amendment, those lacking a protected property interest, and certain contract claims against individuals, while dismissing others with leave to amend; the court also denied the motion to disqualify Wasson's counsel. The core reasoning centered on sovereign immunity, the absence of a protected property interest in continued employment under the facts alleged, qualified immunity considerations, and the exclusivity of workers' compensation remedies for some tort claims.

labor & employmentfree speechcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved Washington Mutual Bank filing an admiralty action to enforce a promissory note and preferred ship mortgage as a maritime lien against the vessel Bellatrix, with related claims against its owners. The court issued an ex parte warrant for the vessel's arrest, which occurred in April 1997, and the owners later moved to set aside the warrant, arguing they were not properly cited to answer and lacked pre-arrest notice. The court denied the motion, holding that Supplemental Federal Rules of Civil Procedure C and E authorize the ex parte warrant process in maritime lien cases and provide for a post-arrest hearing, which satisfies Fifth Amendment due process requirements as upheld in prior case law. The verified complaint adequately showed the lien, and the arrest itself provided notice to the owners.

procedureproperty

This case involved a class of pretrial detainees at San Francisco Jail No. 3 who sued the City and County of San Francisco, alleging that conditions of their confinement violated the Fourteenth Amendment. After an initial settlement, the case was reopened due to alleged noncompliance, leading to appointment of a Special Master whose factual findings addressed issues such as double-celling, recreation, and other living conditions. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted each side's motion in part and denied them in part, finding certain conditions unconstitutional while rejecting others, such as claims related to passive recreation and exercise equipment; the court enjoined the defendants to prepare a remedial plan for the violations identified. The reasoning relied on the Special Master's detailed findings of fact, which were not clearly erroneous, and legal standards prohibiting punishment of pretrial detainees, with the burden on defendants to show that past violations would not recur.

civil rightscriminal law