This case involved the United States seeking a preliminary injunction under IRC sections 7408 and 6700 against Estate Preservation Services, its principals, and related defendants for marketing trusts such as Asset Preservation Trusts and Estate Management Trusts through seminars and manuals that promoted various tax deductions and shelters. The court granted the injunction after an evidentiary hearing, concluding that the defendants had engaged in conduct subject to section 6700 penalties by furnishing false or fraudulent statements about the allowability of tax benefits from these arrangements, which the IRS determined were abusive tax shelters. The ruling rested on evidence from taxpayer audits and the defendants' activities showing the need to prevent recurrence of such conduct. The injunction bars the defendants from organizing, promoting, or selling these trusts or making specified representations about transferring property at no cost, leasing equipment at inflated rates, deducting personal expenses, depreciating residences, or routing charitable contributions back to themselves.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involved plaintiffs Jacklyn and James Tull seeking a refund of a 100% penalty tax assessment under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 against Jacklyn Tull for Hatfield Trucking Company's unpaid federal payroll taxes in 1989, along with challenges to levies on James Tull's wages. The dispute centered on whether specific payments by Hatfield should have been allocated to trust fund tax liabilities, whether Jacklyn Tull qualified as a responsible person who willfully failed to pay the taxes, and whether the IRS could collect from community property wages. After partial summary judgment favoring plaintiffs on allocation of cashier's checks, concessions on some deposits, and a jury trial finding Tull responsible and willful from certain dates, the court addressed remaining issues including allocation of auction proceeds as a legal question and the community property levy under California law. The court determined that disputed factual issues remained on some payments but resolved legal questions on allocation and collection authority in post-trial proceedings, ultimately reducing the assessed penalty amount based on stipulations and verdicts.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryfamily law

This case involved a former Navy sailor's challenge to his 1982 honorable discharge under Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1900.9D after he stated during an interview that he is homosexual, though he denied any post-enlistment homosexual conduct. The plaintiff brought First Amendment free speech and Fifth Amendment equal protection claims, seeking reinstatement, declaratory relief, and other remedies. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court applied rational basis review to the equal protection claim, examining whether the policy was rationally related to legitimate military interests such as morale, discipline, and unit cohesion, while considering arguments about prejudice against homosexuals and precedents including Pruitt v. Cheney and Beller v. Middendorf. The court also addressed the viability of the free speech claim in light of circuit authority.

civil rightsfree speechfederal power

This consolidated case involves cost recovery actions brought by the United States and the State of California under CERCLA against defendants including Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., T.W. Arman, and Rhone-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co. for environmental damage from acid mine drainage at a former mining site in California. The court considered motions for partial summary judgment on defenses and motions to strike defenses raised in the defendants' answers. It ruled on the viability of numerous defenses by applying CERCLA's strict liability framework under section 107(a), which limits defenses to those enumerated in section 107(b) such as act of God, act of war, or third-party acts, along with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure standards for summary judgment and motions to strike. The core reasoning emphasized that CERCLA liability for response costs is subject only to the statute's narrow defenses and that many asserted defenses failed as a matter of law because they fell outside those limits or challenged elements already established by precedent.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

The case concerned plaintiff Bobby W. Poole's challenge to his honorable discharge from the Air Force following a positive urinalysis for marijuana, after which he sought to set aside the discharge, obtain constructive reinstatement, back pay and benefits, retirement benefits, and correction of his military records. Defendants moved to transfer the action to the U.S. Claims Court or amend the February 1991 judgment on the ground that the relief sought exceeded the $10,000 cap on district court jurisdiction under the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2). Plaintiff separately moved for attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, based on prevailing at summary judgment. The court analyzed its subject-matter jurisdiction over non-tort monetary claims against the United States and the standards for awarding fees when the government's position is not substantially justified.

procedurefederal power

This case involved whether income that the California Farm Bureau Federation received from workers’ compensation activities in 1979 and 1980 qualified as unrelated business income taxable under sections 511 et seq. of the Internal Revenue Code. The parties agreed that taxation required the activities to constitute a trade or business, be regularly carried on, and not be substantially related to the organization’s exempt purposes. A jury found for the Farm Bureau on all three elements, and the court denied the United States’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict after determining that substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings on each element, including witness testimony about the organization’s non-profit motives, the frequency of activities, and their connection to exempt goals such as supporting rural farmers. The court entered judgment for the Farm Bureau in the amount of $549,372.68 plus interest.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case McDermott v. Western Union Telegraph Co. was a removed diversity action in which the plaintiff alleged that the defendant telegraph company failed to timely deliver a money order to her son in the Philippines despite representations about quick delivery times, leading to claims for breach of contract, intentional and negligent misrepresentation (both by operators and in commercials), suppression of facts, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment, granting the defendant's motion as to the emotional distress claims (Counts XI and XII) and certain commercial misrepresentation claims (Counts V-VII), while denying it as to other operator misrepresentation claims (Counts II and IV), and denying the plaintiff's motion in full. The core reasoning was that emotional distress claims are not cognizable under federal common law applicable to telegraph companies, that the plaintiff failed to show the commercials were false, and that factual issues remained on the remaining claims and affirmative defenses.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned an attorney's appeal from the bankruptcy court's denial of his application for a one-third contingency fee for services as special and general counsel to the trustee in the consolidated Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings of Kucek Development Corporation and related individuals, as well as denial of compensation for travel time between Redding and Sacramento. The district court examined whether a valid contingency agreement existed at the time of the attorney's 1982 appointment, whether it required prior court disclosure and approval under the Bankruptcy Code, whether it had to comply with California Business and Professions Code section 6147, and whether travel time qualified for reimbursement. The court concluded that no properly disclosed and approved contingency arrangement existed under 11 U.S.C. sections 327 and 328, that state law writing and disclosure requirements applied and were not met, and that the bankruptcy court properly limited fees to reasonable hourly rates without enhancement or travel compensation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a debtor's appeal from bankruptcy court orders approving a settlement agreement with creditors and expunging two lis pendens filings on real property. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's rulings in all respects. The court reasoned that the foreclosure sales occurred without a stay in effect, rendering challenges to title moot; the bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction to approve the settlement in the still-pending second bankruptcy case; the settlement was fair and equitable under the circumstances; and expungement of lis pendens is a collateral matter within the court's authority.

propertyprocedure

This case involved an appeal by the law firm Cooper & Shaffer from a bankruptcy court's order denying without prejudice their application for attorney's fees and expenses in a Chapter 11 proceeding for debtors George and Katherine Gianulias. The bankruptcy court had required evidence of prevailing community rates and the cost of comparable non-bankruptcy services to assess reasonableness under 11 U.S.C. § 330, which the firm had not provided. The district court affirmed the denial, holding that the burden rests on the fee applicant to establish the value of services and that the bankruptcy court possesses wide discretion to require supplemental evidence rather than awarding fees on an incomplete record.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a publicly traded company suing a securities broker-dealer and the estate of its former vice president under civil RICO provisions, alleging a scheme to short-sell the company's stock by spreading false rumors to drive down its value and reduce covering costs, along with related state-law claims of slander and interference with economic advantage. The court dismissed the first amended complaint for failure to state a claim, holding that the allegations did not adequately plead predicate acts such as mail fraud or securities fraud, nor a sufficient pattern of racketeering activity or proper distinctions between the RICO enterprise and defendants under sections 1962(a), (b), and (c). Dismissal was without leave to amend on the ground that prior amendments had not cured the pleading defects and further amendment would be futile.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a motion to remand a multi-defendant civil action filed in California Superior Court, alleging fraud, tort, and statutory violations arising from a home loan and subsequent foreclosure proceedings against a chapter 11 debtor mortgage company and other defendants. The district court adopted the bankruptcy judge's report and recommendation in full and granted the motion for remand. The core reasoning was that equitable grounds under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) supported returning the primarily non-core state law claims to the state forum, particularly since the plaintiff had already obtained relief from the automatic stay to litigate there and the claims could be timely adjudicated in state court.

proceduretorts & liabilityfederal power

This case involves product liability, negligence, and breach of warranty claims arising from a helicopter crash, brought against manufacturers including Rogerson-Hiller, Inc., a successor entity that acquired assets from the bankrupt Hiller Aviation, Inc. The district court reviewed the bankruptcy court's report recommending remand and granted the motion to send the claims back to the Siskiyou County Superior Court. The court found the asserted connection to the Chapter 11 bankruptcy speculative, as it depended on multiple contingencies and interpretations of a prior sale order that did not appear on the face of the complaint. Equitable remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) was appropriate due to the predominance of state-law issues between non-debtor parties, judicial economy concerns from bifurcating identical claims, and the absence of any significant federal interest or prejudice from returning the matter to state court.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Pacific West Cable Co. suing the City and County of Sacramento under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged First Amendment violations and violations of the California Constitution regarding cable television franchising, after antitrust claims were dismissed. A jury trial resulted in special verdicts largely favoring the plaintiff on the free speech claims, leading to declaratory and injunctive relief but zero damages. In this opinion on the prevailing party's post-trial motion, the court awarded reasonable attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 using the lodestar method of reasonable hours multiplied by a reasonable rate, while considering Kerr factors, and granted certain costs but denied expert witness fees beyond the statutory limits set by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821. The court reasoned that the fee-shifting statute's purpose is to enable access to legal representation for redressing federal law violations without providing economic windfalls or replicating private fee arrangements.

free speechcivil rights

In these consolidated Title VII actions, pro se plaintiffs alleged employment discrimination by federal agencies on the basis of sex, race, national origin, and age but named the employing departments rather than their secretaries as defendants. The government moved to dismiss the complaints for failure to name the proper defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). The court denied the motions, holding that the complaints satisfied the requirements of notice pleading under Rule 8, caused no prejudice to the government, and were supported by controlling Ninth Circuit precedent allowing such suits to proceed against the agency. The opinion emphasized liberal construction of pro se pleadings and distinguished contrary authority from other circuits.

civil rightsprocedurelabor & employment

The case involved a plaintiff's request for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) after she prevailed in a suit against the Secretary of Health and Human Services to obtain social security disability benefits. The magistrate recommended denying the fees based on Ninth Circuit precedent in Albrecht v. Heckler, which found fees inappropriate when an ALJ's decision was reversed for improper weighing of conflicting medical evidence. Upon de novo review, the court noted that the 1985 EAJA amendments and their legislative history indicated agency actions unsupported by substantial evidence are virtually certain not to be substantially justified, potentially rendering Albrecht no longer controlling, and directed the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing these developments.

federal powerprocedurehealthcare

The case concerned a defendant charged with unauthorized residential occupancy of National Forest System lands in violation of 16 U.S.C. § 551 and 36 C.F.R. § 261.10(b). The defendant, who had occupied the land since 1984 without a permit, asserted an aboriginal Indian right of occupancy under Cramer v. United States, citing her relatives' historical presence in the area. The court found that any potential aboriginal title was extinguished by a voluntary abandonment between 1870 and 1984, when no blood relatives resided on the site, and therefore held that the regulation applied. Based on the stipulated facts, the court convicted the defendant of the charged offense.

criminal lawenvironmentpropertyfederal power

The case centered on Pacific West Cable Company's challenge to the City of Sacramento's denial of a cable television franchise under an ordinance that established an exclusive franchising process requiring proposals, fees, and compliance with various technical and access requirements. Plaintiff alleged that the city's actions, including awarding the franchise to another company, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Sherman Act, and the California Constitution by restricting access to public rights-of-way and conduits. After a jury trial yielding partial special verdicts, with some accepted and others resulting in a deadlock, the court addressed the entry of judgment and plaintiff's request for injunctive relief permitting it to construct and operate a system. The court's analysis focused on the jury findings, the validity of the ordinance provisions such as public-access channel mandates, and whether the regulatory scheme comported with constitutional and antitrust standards.

free speechbusiness & regulatorycivil rights

In Cal-Farm Insurance v. United States, the plaintiff insurance company sought a refund of taxes paid after the IRS disallowed a deduction claimed for a 1975 payment to its subsidiary reimbursing alleged overcharges on shared expenses from 1968-1972. The companies, both affiliated with the California Farm Bureau Federation, had periodically adjusted their allocation of common costs without a written agreement, and the 1975 payment was based on a later review using premium and policy metrics. The court granted summary judgment to the government on cross-motions, ruling the deduction was not allowable under IRC §162(a) as an ordinary and necessary business expense because the payment lacked a legal obligation and was not conducted at arm's length between related parties, and was similarly unavailable under §1341 since no claim-of-right repayment was established. The core reasoning emphasized the absence of evidence showing the allocations would have been the same between uncontrolled taxpayers and the voluntary, intra-group nature of the transaction.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved three federally recognized Native American tribes and one individual suing the United States, the Secretary of the Interior, and Bureau of Indian Affairs officials, alleging that the agency had arbitrarily delayed authorizing secretarial elections for the tribes to adopt constitutions under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. Plaintiffs argued that the Secretary had a nondiscretionary duty to call elections promptly upon tribal request, without requiring prior BIA review and modification of draft constitutions. Defendants contended that the Secretary possessed broad discretion to approve constitutions in advance to avoid wasteful elections on noncompliant documents. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court held that the statute imposes a mandatory duty to authorize elections within a reasonable time after a final tribal request, with the Secretary's approval authority exercisable only after the election and ratification by tribal members. The decision rested on the IRA's policy favoring tribal self-government and the absence of statutory language authorizing pre-election constitutional review.

federal powercivil rights