District Court, N.D. California — appointed by Jimmy Carter
Johnson v. Bay Area Rapid Transit
District Court, N.D. California · 2011-05-10 · cited 3×
This case arose from the January 1, 2009, incident at BART's Fruitvale Station in which officers detained several young men, including Oscar Grant III, after a reported fight on a train, culminating in officer Johannes Mehserle shooting Grant in the back. Plaintiffs, consisting of Grant's estate, family members, and companions, sued BART, its police chief, and multiple officers for federal and state civil rights violations, including claims of unlawful arrest and excessive force. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court found genuine issues of material fact as to whether the detentions and uses of force, such as tackling Anicete without warning or the fatal shooting of Grant, were reasonable under the circumstances. The core reasoning relied on conflicting video evidence, witness testimony, and the absence of active interference or warnings, which precluded qualified immunity and summary judgment on several claims.
civil rightsprocedurecriminal law
Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. v. Xicor LLC
District Court, N.D. California · 2011-03-22 · cited 1×
The case involves Silicon Storage Technology seeking a declaratory judgment that claims 12 and 13 of Xicor’s reissued patent are invalid and not infringed, with Xicor counterclaiming for infringement. The dispute centers on whether those claims, which removed a limitation requiring use of tetraethylorthosilicate in a low-pressure chemical vapor deposition process for forming a tunneling oxide layer, violate the rule against recapture. The court granted summary judgment to SST, holding the claims invalid because the patentee had added the TEOS limitation during original prosecution to overcome a prior-art rejection and thereby surrendered broader subject matter that could not be reclaimed in reissue.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Corns v. Laborers International Union of North America
District Court, N.D. California · 2011-02-25
In Corns v. Laborers International Union of North America, plaintiff Alex Corns sued LIUNA, the Northern California District Council of Laborers, and Local 166, alleging that the unions violated Section 101(a)(3) of the LMRDA by imposing organizing fee assessments and raising dues without a required secret-ballot vote of Local 166 members. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment and concluded that the international union's organizing fee was validly ratified at its convention and incorporated into local agreements, while the dues increases were approved through open votes by Local 166 members followed by a district council convention with local delegates, satisfying the statute's requirements for increases by an intermediate body. The court rejected arguments that the district council could not set dues payable by individual members or that secret ballots were mandated, noting that union constitutions bound members and that the procedures used complied with the LMRDA. Accordingly, the court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted summary judgment to the union defendants.
labor & employment
PALMTREE ACQUISITION CORP. v. Neely
District Court, N.D. California · 2011-02-11
This case involves third-party claims for contribution under CERCLA, along with declaratory and equitable relief, seeking to hold the successor trustee of a deceased individual's revocable trust liable for costs to remediate PCE soil and groundwater contamination at two Livermore shopping centers. The contamination stemmed from dry cleaning operations at properties formerly owned and operated by entities connected to Harold A. Ellis, Jr., who had served as co-trustee of a liquidating trust that owned one of the sites and participated in prior settlement and remediation efforts. The court granted the trustee's motion to dismiss the second amended third-party complaint with prejudice, holding that Ellis could not be held personally liable under CERCLA because his involvement was solely in a fiduciary capacity and the Asset Conservation Act shielded him from personal liability beyond trust assets. The court further found that the complaint failed to allege facts showing any applicable exceptions, such as direct personal negligence by Ellis causing the release or improper distributions benefiting him personally, and therefore no basis existed to reach the trust's assets.
environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure
Leon v. Felker
District Court, N.D. California · 2011-01-13
This case involves a habeas corpus petition filed by California prisoner David Leon under 28 U.S.C. section 2254, challenging his convictions for the murder of Enrique Hernandez, discharging a firearm at an occupied vehicle, and related gang enhancements stemming from a 2002 gang-related shooting incident. The district court granted the petition in part, vacating the murder conviction due to an erroneous jury instruction on felony murder that permitted conviction without requiring proof of implied malice. The court applied the Brecht harmless-error standard and found the instructional error had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's deliberations, citing evidence such as a juror letter indicating the jury may have been constrained by the faulty instruction and the absence of clear indications that the jury relied on a valid implied-malice theory instead. The opinion notes that the error was not harmless given the record and precedents like Evanchyk v. Stewart.
criminal lawprocedure
Ennis v. City of Daly City
District Court, N.D. California · 2010-11-22
The case involves plaintiff Mark Ennis, an animal rights activist and member of Citizens for Cruelty-Free Entertainment, who attended a Carson & Barnes Circus performance at the Cow Palace in Daly City to videotape animals and distribute leaflets. He alleges that after police initially allowed his group access beyond barricades for speech activities, circus employees interfered, leading to a physical altercation with police officers, damage to his camera, and his arrest for trespass, resisting arrest, and assault. Ennis sued the City, police officers, the circus, and others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims including Civil Code § 52.1 for violations of his civil and free speech rights. On the circus defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that while some claims against the circus could proceed, the § 52.1 claim failed because the complaint did not allege sufficient facts showing that circus employees acted with bias or interfered with the plaintiff's constitutional rights in the manner required by the statute.
civil rightsfree speechcriminal law