Marilyn Hall Patel

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plaintiffs Joseph Roling and Alexander Landvater filed a putative class action against E*Trade Securities LLC, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of California Civil Code sections 1671 and 17200 after E*Trade charged them $40 quarterly inactivity fees on their brokerage accounts and liquidated their holdings to collect the fees, contrary to the Brokerage Customer Agreement and fee schedules. E*Trade moved to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court denied the motion to transfer, finding the Northern District of California appropriate after weighing factors including convenience, plaintiffs' choice of forum, and contacts with the forum. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, allowing certain contract and UCL claims to proceed while dismissing others, such as claims by non-residents or those lacking sufficient allegations of misconduct in California.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Deniz Bolbol, an animal rights activist with Citizens for Cruelty-Free Entertainment, who sued the City of Daly City, its police chief, and an officer for alleged civil rights violations under federal and state law. Bolbol claimed interference with her First Amendment activities while distributing leaflets and videotaping circus animals at the Cow Palace in September 2008, including disputes over police-enforced barricades and her subsequent arrest. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the officers acted lawfully with reasonable cause. The court adopted legal conclusions from a related case, found no triable issues on the claims including false arrest under California Penal Code section 847(b), and granted summary judgment to the defendants.

civil rightsfree speechprocedure

The case involves a dispute between DocMagic, a provider of online loan document preparation services, and Ellie Mae, a developer of loan origination systems and operator of the ePASS online transaction network. DocMagic alleged that Ellie Mae unlawfully denied it access to the network, misused its proprietary information to create a competing service, and violated antitrust, trademark, copyright, contract, trade secret, and unfair competition laws; Ellie Mae filed counterclaims asserting copyright infringement, computer fraud, breach of contract, and related violations based on DocMagic's alleged unauthorized access to its systems and software. The court addressed cross-motions to dismiss, evaluating the sufficiency of the pleadings under applicable legal standards. It reasoned that claims such as trade dress infringement require allegations of secondary meaning rather than inherent distinctiveness, copyright claims must specifically identify protected materials, and computer access claims under state law can proceed where unauthorized access to the claimant's own systems is alleged.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns APL's effort to collect a prior judgment against U.G. and Kamdar—entities held liable for damages from improperly packaged cargo under a bill of lading—from their insurer Valley Forge under California Insurance Code section 11580. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether U.G.'s insurance policy covers the underlying contractual indemnification obligation. The court analyzed the policy language, the nature of the liability imposed by the bill of lading clauses, and whether coverage extends to obligations arising from the shipper's packing negligence rather than the insured's own tortious acts.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case concerned a federal habeas corpus petition filed by David Hart, a California prisoner serving a sentence of fifteen years to life for a 1983 second-degree murder conviction, challenging Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's reversal of the Board of Parole Hearings' grant of parole. The Governor had overturned the Board's decision based solely on the premeditated and heinous nature of the commitment offense, despite positive factors such as Hart's prison programming, psychological evaluations, and parole plans. Applying the "some evidence" standard clarified in In re Lawrence, the district court examined whether the record contained evidence linking the offense to Hart's current dangerousness. The court concluded that the commitment offense alone did not constitute such evidence and granted the petition, finding a due process violation. Hart had exhausted state remedies before seeking federal relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

criminal law

In this trademark case, plaintiff Rebelution, LLC, a reggae band, sued defendant Armando Perez (known as Pitbull) and related parties, alleging that Perez's use of the word 'Rebelution' as the title of his 2009 album infringed the band's registered trademark and constituted unfair competition under federal and state law. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that their use was protected by the First Amendment under the Rogers v. Grimaldi test and that no reasonable jury could find a likelihood of consumer confusion. The court denied the motion, holding that the Rogers test did not bar the Lanham Act claim and that material factual disputes existed regarding the strength of the mark, evidence of actual confusion, and the other factors for likelihood of confusion. The opinion emphasized that the band's registered mark provided rights in musical recordings and that third-party uses did not eliminate the potential for confusion with Perez's album.

business & regulatoryfree speech

The case involves the United States suing Gonzales & Gonzales Bonds & Insurance Agency and American Surety to collect on immigration bonds that DHS officers declared breached after bonded aliens failed to depart or appear as required. Defendants counterclaimed that seventeen additional breach determinations were improper, asserting that DHS violated procedures outlined in prior Amwest settlement agreements, such as sending timely demands, questionnaires, and notices, and allowing file inspections, and they sought return of payments made under protest plus interest and penalties. The court addressed the government's motion to dismiss the counterclaim and defendants' motion on the nature of the case by analyzing the applicable standard of review, concluding that the bond-breach declarations constitute final agency actions subject to APA review under the substantial evidence standard rather than de novo contract claims or Little Tucker Act jurisdiction, while rejecting arguments that additional fact-finding procedures were required.

immigrationbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

Plaintiff Karim Allan sued mortgage lender GreenPoint Mortgage Funding and others over alleged violations arising from the refinancing of his home in late 2006, asserting claims under RESPA, TILA, RICO, the Fair Housing Act, deceit, and breach of fiduciary duty. The court denied Allan's motion for summary judgment on his RESPA and TILA claims and granted GreenPoint's motion for summary judgment on all six causes of action. The core reasoning was that Allan failed to present sufficient admissible evidence, such as a supporting declaration or probative facts, to establish the elements of his claims, create genuine issues of material fact, or support equitable tolling, including no evidence that GreenPoint owed him a fiduciary duty.

business & regulatoryprocedurepropertytorts & liability

This case involved a lawsuit brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and California law by a visually disabled plaintiff seeking injunctive relief for access barriers at the Citizen Thai restaurant and statutory damages. The parties reached a settlement through a Consent Decree that provided the requested injunctive relief, $10,000 in damages, and an agreement that defendants would pay reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and costs as determined by the court. After the plaintiff moved for fees following unsuccessful negotiations, the magistrate judge recommended awarding the full amount requested with minor adjustments, finding the rates and hours reasonable and the work necessary to achieve the outcome. The district court adopted the report and recommendation in full, granting fees, expenses, and costs totaling $105,147 and ordering payment within 20 days, based on the parties' prior agreement in the Consent Decree and the plaintiff's prevailing status.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Quiller Barnes suing the AT&T Pension Benefit Plan under ERISA for allegedly wrongfully denying him additional pension benefits related to his periods of employment with Pacific Bell, claiming failures in notice, payment of benefits due, and violation of anti-cutback rules. The court addressed Barnes' motion to strike all 24 affirmative defenses in the defendant's answer to the amended complaint, along with a request to deem certain allegations admitted. The court granted the motion to strike numerous affirmative defenses that were insufficiently pled or failed to provide fair notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), while denying the request to deem allegations admitted because the answer's conditional and partial denials satisfied Rule 8(b). The reasoning emphasized that motions to strike are disfavored but appropriate where defenses lack merit or notice, and that pleadings should be construed to allow factual disputes to proceed.

labor & employmentprocedure

In Herson v. City of San Carlos, plaintiffs Jeffrey Herson and East Bay Outdoor sued the City after it denied their application to build a large pole sign displaying political messages adjacent to Highway 101, alleging a violation of their First Amendment rights to free expression. The City had rejected the permit under its municipal code because the proposed structure exceeded size limits for pole signs and qualified as a prohibited billboard or off-site sign. The court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, holding that the denial rested on valid, content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions regarding sign size that would independently bar the permit. It further concluded that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge other provisions of the code, such as those involving content-based distinctions or prior restraints, because a favorable ruling on those claims would not redress their injury.

free speechcivil rights

The case involves plaintiffs Jonathan Bissoon-Dath and Jennifer B. Dath suing Sony Computer Entertainment America and David Jaffe for copyright infringement, claiming that their original treatments and screenplays featuring Greek mythological themes, Spartan conflicts with Athens, divine interventions by gods like Zeus and Ares, and a champion's quest for peace were used without permission to create the God of War video game. The court considered the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It determined that summary judgment was appropriate because the plaintiffs' works and the game shared only general ideas and common mythological elements, not the specific expressive details protected by copyright, as evidenced by significant differences in plot, characters, and settings, along with errors in the plaintiffs' expert analysis. The reasoning focused on the lack of substantial similarity in protectable expression between the works.

property

This case is an insurance coverage dispute between Flintkote Co. and its insurer over whether the parent company qualifies as a named insured under a policy issued to its Canadian subsidiaries, following years of litigation on asbestos-related claims. The court addressed multiple pre-trial motions, including the insurer's request to reconsider an earlier ruling that the parent was covered, based on newly found underwriting documents from 1958-1961 purporting to show limited coverage intent. The court denied reconsideration, finding the documents were not newly discovered because the insurer failed to exercise reasonable diligence in locating them within its own files despite prior knowledge of relevant connections. It also granted limited additional discovery on reserves information, adopted the special master's discovery rulings, and partially excluded testimony from the insurer's damages expert while requiring a proffer of that testimony before trial.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns plaintiff Saeed Ahmed, a Pakistani citizen granted asylum, who applied for adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident but was denied by USCIS on the ground that he had provided material support to a terrorist organization (the MQM and related factions) based on activities described in his asylum application. Ahmed sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, initially challenging the denial as arbitrary and capricious and later, after the agency reopened the case, challenging the ongoing delay in adjudication; defendant Mayorkas moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court examined whether INA provisions such as 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) barred review, noted the parties' agreement that the inadmissibility finding was a purely legal determination not covered by the discretionary bar, and considered related issues including ripeness, due process, and the availability of judicial review for constitutional or legal questions.

immigrationprocedure