Robert Francis Peckham

In this case, taxpayers Lloyd and Donna Nielsen sued the United States to recover about $1,200 in federal income taxes paid on $5,165 received as sick leave pay in 1981 after Lloyd Nielsen's heart bypass surgery. They argued the amount qualified as excludable disability income following a later workers' compensation award and a county agreement reclassifying the pay. The government moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case, holding that the payments were not excludable under Internal Revenue Code section 104(a)(1) because Nielsen, as a probation officer, was not among the employee categories covered by the relevant California statute (Labor Code section 4850) providing workers' compensation-like benefits, and not excludable under section 104(a)(2) because there was no tort or tort-like claim involved.

taxeslabor & employment

This case involved Kentucky Central Life Insurance Company suing its former agents and others for allegedly misrepresenting the company's financial condition to induce policyholders to replace their policies with those from competitors, including claims of unlawful twisting under Insurance Code sections, intentional interference with economic advantage and contracts, unfair competition, breach of contract, declaratory relief regarding commissions, and defamation. The defendants moved to dismiss all nine claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion as to the interference, breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and unfair competition claims, finding sufficient allegations, but granted leave to amend the Insurance Code claims to plead misrepresentations with particularity and the defamation claim to more clearly allege malice, while rejecting arguments based on privileges and lack of private rights of action. The decision rested on presuming the plaintiff's allegations true and determining that the complaint did not clearly fail to state claims under the applicable standards.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved former insurance agents who sued Kentucky Central Life Insurance Company and several of its officers, alleging that the company concealed its financial instability and improper lending practices while inducing policy sales, and later made libelous statements about the agents; the complaints asserted RICO violations along with state claims for fraud, libel, breach of contract, and related torts. The court granted the individual defendants' motion to dismiss most of them for lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient minimum contacts, dismissed the RICO claims as barred by the McCarran-Ferguson Act's preservation of state insurance regulation, denied dismissal of the fraud, misrepresentation, and libel claims, and granted in part the motion to strike certain allegations while allowing repleading on requests for public restitution. The reasoning centered on statutory preemption for the federal claims, traditional jurisdictional analysis for the officers, and the sufficiency of the pleadings for the remaining state-law causes of action at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In this case, an African-American inmate at San Quentin prison filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming that prison officials targeted him based on race and his prior legal filings by placing him in administrative segregation without justification, confiscating his eyeglasses despite his legal blindness, denying him legal materials and phone calls needed to amend a prior complaint, withholding basic hygiene items like soap and toilet paper, and confiscating a letter from his mother, among other deprivations; he sought injunctive relief and return of property. The court granted the plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and evaluated each claim against constitutional standards. It determined that the allegations regarding eyeglasses, legal property access, soap and toilet paper, and mail censorship stated cognizable claims under the Eighth Amendment and due process clause for deliberate indifference to medical needs, denial of access to courts, and deprivation of basic necessities, ordering those claims served on defendants for a special report. Claims involving retaliation, racial discrimination, administrative segregation placement, denial of legal phone calls, and other property deprivations were dismissed without prejudice to amendment within twenty days, while the food package claim was dismissed with prejudice as failing to state a § 1983 claim, and the request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff seeking an award of attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act after prevailing in a judicial review action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) challenging the Secretary of Health and Human Services' determination of his Social Security disability onset date. The court decided that the fee application was timely, that the plaintiff was a prevailing party entitled to fees, and that the government's position was not substantially justified, resulting in an award of $2,387.96. The core reasoning addressed the interplay between the EAJA's final judgment and timeliness requirements and the remand provisions of § 405(g), finding that final judgment occurred after the Appeals Council's favorable decision and that other objections regarding voluntary dismissal, substantial justification, and protracted litigation lacked merit.

procedurefederal powerhealthcare

In Gordon v. Ford Motor Credit Co., the plaintiff brought a purported class action alleging that defendant FMCC, an automobile financing company, violated RICO by fraudulently overcharging customers for collateral protection insurance on financed vehicles when they failed to obtain required coverage, with the insurance purchased from a related entity at inflated rates. FMCC moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing primarily that the McCarran-Ferguson Act bars the federal RICO claim because the challenged practices constitute the business of insurance, which Congress left to state regulation, and secondarily that the complaint failed to plead required RICO elements. The court analyzed the Act through a four-step framework, focusing on whether the practices involved the core relationship between insurer and insured regarding rates, coverages, and policies, and whether applying RICO would impair state insurance laws, while rejecting arguments that the Act applies only to insurance companies or that the conduct fell outside the business of insurance.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned the sentencing of defendants Lloyd Baker and Terrell Thompson, each of whom pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute approximately one kilogram of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The court calculated base offense levels under the sentencing guidelines, applied adjustments for acceptance of responsibility and reckless endangerment during flight, and addressed the defendants' criminal history categories. For Baker, the court denied a minor-participant reduction due to the solitary nature of the charged offense but granted a downward departure under § 5K2.0 for aberrant behavior, imposing the ten-year statutory minimum. For Thompson, the court lowered his criminal history category and granted a downward departure under § 5K2.0 based on his limited role in the broader criminal conduct, resulting in a sentence of 151 months. The core reasoning focused on the constraints of the guidelines and Ninth Circuit precedent regarding departures and role adjustments in single-participant charges.

criminal law

This case involved a dispute between musicians and a record producer over ownership of musical compositions and sound recordings, with claims of copyright infringement and breaches of contract arising from alleged agreements transferring rights. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' contractual claims for breach, tortious denial, and interference because the agreements did not constitute a valid written transfer of copyright ownership as required by federal law under 17 U.S.C. § 204(a). However, the court denied dismissal of the copyright infringement claim regarding the sound recordings, reasoning that the recording agreement implied a nonexclusive license to use the underlying compositions. The remaining state law claims were allowed to proceed under supplemental jurisdiction.

propertyprocedurefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case was a civil tax refund suit in which plaintiff Brian Cooke challenged IRS assessments under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 that held him liable as a responsible person for unpaid payroll and excise taxes of South Pacific Island Airways in late 1986 and early 1987. The court ruled for Cooke, finding he was neither a responsible person nor willful in failing to pay the taxes, and ordered a refund of amounts paid plus interest while dismissing the United States' counterclaim to reduce the assessment to judgment. The core reasoning was that actual control of the company remained with George Wray despite Cooke's nominal CEO appointment under a bankruptcy stipulation, employees did not seek his approval for payments, and Cooke lacked knowledge of current tax delinquencies during his tenure.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case concerned plaintiffs Hedden and Gendel’s claims against defendants Gino and Marie Marinelli for violations of Sections 12(1) and 12(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and breach of contract arising from a 1990 secondary sale of American Confectionery Corporation stock, along with Marinelli’s counterclaim for the unpaid purchase price from Gendel. After trial, the jury returned a verdict against both plaintiffs on their claims against Gino Marinelli and in favor of Marinelli on the counterclaim. The court therefore dismissed the complaint, holding that the evidence did not establish liability under the securities laws or for breach of contract and that Marie Marinelli had no ownership interest in the stock sold.

business & regulatory

This case involved Allstate Insurance seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its policyholder, Frank Tankovich, against a civil judgment obtained by the Ahl family for injuries from Tankovich's racially motivated harassment and hate crimes against them as neighbors. The court granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment and default judgment, ruling that the homeowners policy provided no coverage. The core reasoning was that the policy excluded coverage for injuries resulting from intentional or criminal acts, which was reinforced by California Insurance Code Section 533 and Civil Code Section 1668 prohibiting indemnification for willful violations of law; Tankovich's no-contest plea and deposition admissions established the criminal nature of the conduct.

civil rightscriminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Coleman v. Vasquez, a death-sentenced prisoner filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after his state conviction and sentence were upheld. Following the Supreme Court's decision in McCleskey v. Zant, which adopted a stricter cause-and-prejudice standard for abuse of the writ and required all possible claims to be raised in the first federal petition, the question arose whether federal funds under 21 U.S.C. § 848(q)(4)(B) and (q)(9) could cover the cost of counsel's investigation to identify unexhausted claims. The district court held that such investigative services were reasonably necessary for adequate representation of an indigent defendant and authorized payment of fees and expenses, rejecting arguments that principles of comity or federalism barred federal funding for the investigation. The court reasoned that the statute's purpose is to place indigent defendants in a position comparable to non-indigent ones and that exhaustion issues could be addressed later if new claims were uncovered.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case is a securities fraud class action brought by plaintiff Marjorie Alfus on behalf of purchasers of Pyramid Technology Corp. stock, alleging that the company and its officers made misleading statements and omissions about product demand, market position, and financial prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. The defendants moved to dismiss the first amended complaint for failure to adequately plead scienter and other elements, and defendant Rollnick separately sought to strike conspiracy allegations and a disgorgement remedy. The court denied the motion to dismiss the primary Rule 10b-5 claims for the period from October 31, 1988, to March 23, 1989, finding that the amended complaint sufficiently addressed prior deficiencies regarding awareness of adverse facts, but granted the motion in part by dismissing conspiracy claims with prejudice, insider trading and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act claims, allegations based on Item 303 of Regulation S-K, and striking the disgorgement prayer. The court reasoned that violations of Item 303 disclosure standards do not automatically establish a duty under Rule 10b-5, and that certain secondary liability and remedy claims lacked sufficient support.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company sued for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to indemnify its insured, Thomas Ezrin, under a homeowners' policy for any damages arising from an alleged sexual assault and battery of a minor in 1985. The underlying complaint alleged that Ezrin and others assaulted and battered Jennifer Mason after she became intoxicated at a fraternity event. The court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment, holding that the insurer had no duty to indemnify because non-consensual sexual assault constitutes a willful act under California Insurance Code section 533 and the policy's exclusion for bodily injury expected or intended by the insured. The core reasoning was that intent to injure may be inferred as a matter of law from such conduct, making coverage unavailable regardless of whether the underlying claims were proven.

criminal lawtorts & liability

This case involved a California training program company (ZMI) suing its German distributor (Training Team) and related parties for breach of contract, copyright infringement, Lanham Act violations, and fraud arising from distribution agreements for management training materials. Defendants moved to dismiss or stay the case, arguing that the contracts required arbitration of all disputes, that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over the German parties, and that U.S. copyright and Lanham Act claims could not reach acts occurring entirely abroad. The court denied the arbitration motion, finding the clause limited by its plain language to disputes over "amounts due and owing" rather than all claims. It also rejected the personal jurisdiction challenge but granted dismissal of the copyright and Lanham Act claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that U.S. intellectual property laws do not apply extraterritorially absent infringing acts within the United States. The contracts were negotiated and signed in Europe with only minimal U.S. contacts by defendants.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff born in Canada in 1931 to a U.S. citizen mother and Canadian father who was denied a U.S. passport under Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, a law that granted citizenship to foreign-born children of American fathers but not mothers. The plaintiff sued the State Department, claiming the gender-based distinction violated equal protection under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The court referenced its prior ruling in Elias v. U.S. Department of State finding the statute unconstitutional on similar facts, rejected collateral estoppel due to lack of mutuality, and addressed the government's new arguments on standing, laches, dual citizenship concerns, and judicial power to remedy citizenship issues.

immigrationcivil rights

This case involved a class action lawsuit brought by Salvadoran and Guatemalan nationals in the United States against the Department of Justice, INS, and Department of State, challenging systemic issues in the processing of their asylum claims under the Refugee Act of 1980. The parties submitted a stipulated settlement agreement providing for new de novo asylum adjudications, notices of rights, stays of deportation, employment authorization, and other procedural protections for eligible class members. After publishing notice and holding a fairness hearing, the court considered the single objection received and independently determined that the agreement was fair, adequate, and reasonable. It therefore approved the settlement, dismissed the action with prejudice while retaining jurisdiction for enforcement, and directed payment of attorneys' fees and costs as specified in the agreement.

immigrationcivil rightsprocedure

In Weiser v. United States, four groups of taxpayers sued for refunds of alternative minimum tax (AMT) paid for tax years 1984-1986, arguing that the tax benefit rule in 26 U.S.C. § 58(h) should reduce their AMT liability because large non-preference deductions had already offset their income, leaving certain preference items without tax benefit. The United States countered that § 58(h) did not apply to the AMT regime under § 55, which instead incorporated its own tax benefit mechanisms via Form 6251, and that even if it applied the rule would not excuse the liability. On cross-motions for summary judgment with stipulated facts, the district court granted judgment to the government. It held that Congress had limited the tax benefit rule to the prior add-on minimum tax and that the AMT's structure already accounted for benefit issues, consistent with the statute's purpose of preventing high-income taxpayers from avoiding tax through aggregated deductions.

taxes

This case is a declaratory relief action in which Aetna Casualty & Surety Company sought a ruling that its insurance policy did not require it to defend or indemnify Trans World Assurance Company against claims in an underlying lawsuit. The underlying action, filed in Ohio by participants in tax seminars, alleged RICO violations, fraud, and misrepresentation stemming from a fraudulent tax shelter scheme promoted by a Trans World agent. Aetna moved for summary judgment on grounds including that the claims did not involve covered property damage, personal injury, bodily injury, advertising injury, or an occurrence under the policy, and that coverage was limited to premises liability. The court granted summary judgment to Aetna, concluding that the underlying claims did not fall within any policy-defined categories of covered damages such as advertising injury, so Aetna had no duty to defend or indemnify.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, a former employee sued her employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation after her compensation was reduced and her employment terminated following two pregnancy leaves. The employer moved to stay the federal court proceedings and compel arbitration, citing the employee's signed agreement to follow the arbitration rules of securities self-regulatory organizations such as the NYSE, NASD, and AMEX. The court denied the motion, holding that the employee could not prospectively waive her right to a judicial forum for a Title VII claim. The decision relied on Supreme Court precedent indicating congressional intent to preserve judicial remedies in Title VII cases, distinguished authority involving other statutes, and followed Ninth Circuit rulings that disfavor arbitration of analogous claims.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure