The case involved a homeowner with multiple medical conditions causing extreme sensitivity to chemicals who sued her homeowners association and management company after they applied pesticides, fertilizers, and similar substances near her property in 2008 and 2009, allegedly causing her physical injury and emotional distress despite her requests for accommodations. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all fifteen claims against them, arguing there was no evidence of a causal link between the applications and the plaintiff's harm. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff's own testimony about the timing of the chemical applications and her resulting symptoms created a genuine dispute of material fact on causation sufficient to defeat summary judgment, even though her earlier request for a preliminary injunction had been denied for lack of proof that harm was likely.
This case concerns a lawful permanent resident from the Philippines who, after a 2007 state conviction for willful infliction of corporal injury, was placed in removal proceedings as an aggravated felon and detained by immigration authorities pending the outcome of his appeals. The petitioner filed for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming his prolonged detention was unreasonable and that his bond hearings were procedurally deficient in violation of due process, including failures to apply the correct burden of proof, provide counsel, and properly limit evidence considered. The district court held that it had jurisdiction to review claims of legal and constitutional error in the bond proceedings despite limits on reviewing discretionary immigration decisions. It concluded that certain procedural shortcomings existed in the hearings and granted the amended petition, issuing a conditional writ of habeas corpus requiring a new bond hearing before an immigration judge within thirty days or the petitioner's release.
The case concerned a dispute between two insurance companies over whether defendant National Union Fire Insurance had a duty to defend a grading contractor in two underlying construction-defect lawsuits filed in state court. Plaintiff American Safety Indemnity Company, which had defended the contractor under its earlier policies, sought declaratory relief and equitable contribution after defendant refused to defend under its later policy. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted plaintiff's motion and denied defendant's, holding that the policy language was ambiguous as to the duty to defend and that California rules of contract interpretation required the ambiguity to be resolved against the insurer.
The case involved a class action by plaintiff Eduardo Larin against Bank of America alleging violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unfair competition and false advertising laws, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The claims stemmed from the bank's alleged enrollment of the plaintiff in an uncollected funds protection plan without consent, which made deposited funds available faster and led to overdraft-related fees and credit card charges when a $7,500 check was later returned. The court granted the bank's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice, holding that the claims were preempted by the Expedited Funds Availability Act and National Bank Act because they directly concerned the bank's deposit-taking powers and funds availability policies for checking accounts. The reasoning focused on the federal statutes' express preemption of state laws regulating these banking functions, distinguishing the allegations from non-preempted cases involving only overdraft posting or fee practices.
The case arose after Border Patrol agent Arturo Lorenzo shot and killed a person during a 2007 border altercation near Calexico, California; plaintiffs alleged that Customs and Border Protection employees altered surveillance video of the incident by adding identifying information and then released it, leading to threats, emotional distress, and relocation. They sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Privacy Act for invasion of privacy, negligent supervision, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and related claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the government's motion to dismiss, holding that sovereign immunity barred the intentional-tort and negligent-supervision claims, that the remaining privacy claims failed to state a cause of action, and that the wife lacked standing on the statutory claim, while allowing the husband's Privacy Act claim and the negligent-infliction claim to proceed.
In this case, plaintiffs Carlos and Laura McGrew alleged that defendant Countrywide Home Loans coerced them into a negatively amortizing adjustable-rate mortgage through false statements and predatory lending practices, asserting six claims including violations of TILA, breach of fiduciary duty under TILA, TCPA, California's Unfair Competition Law, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and declaratory relief regarding foreclosure without the original note. The court dismissed the TILA damages claim with prejudice as time-barred, the fiduciary duty claim with leave to amend because no duty was owed to borrowers and no private right of action exists, the Rosenthal Act claim with leave to amend for failure to state a viable misrepresentation, and the declaratory relief claim because California law permits nonjudicial foreclosure without physical possession of the note. It denied dismissal of the TCPA and Unfair Competition Law claims but struck references to unavailable statutory damages under the latter. Overall, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, with leave to amend certain claims.
business & regulatorypropertyprocedure
Affiliations
District Court, S.D. California — appointed by George W. Bush
