William B. Shubb

This case was a class action lawsuit filed by Kristy Schwarm and other plaintiffs against Henry Craighead and District Attorney Technical Services, Ltd. for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in collecting on dishonored checks, along with federal and state due process claims. The court previously certified a class of approximately 36,000 members, granted summary judgment on the FDCPA claims, and awarded $741,387.05 in damages against the defendants jointly and severally, though only a portion was recovered from DATS's bankruptcy estate. In this order, the court grants the plaintiffs' motions for attorneys' fees and costs using the lodestar method rather than a percentage of the fund and approves the proposed plan to distribute the recovered funds, reasoning that the limited assets made full compensation impossible and that the distribution fairly compensates counsel for extensive work while advancing FDCPA policies.

civil rightsprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned claims by Shirley Newman, a student with a history of mental illness, and Anthony Butler against San Joaquin Delta Community College District and two campus police officers arising from a 2008 incident in which officers responded to Newman's anxiety episode in a classroom, physically detained the plaintiffs, and led to Newman's temporary suspension for misconduct. Plaintiffs asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force and unreasonable seizure, the ADA and Rehabilitation Act for disability discrimination, and related state claims including battery, false imprisonment, and violations of the Unruh Act and Disabled Persons Act. The court applied the summary judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, noting genuine disputes of material fact regarding the plaintiffs' conduct, compliance with orders, and the officers' use of force, while analyzing whether intentional discrimination was required for certain statutory claims and whether administrative exhaustion was satisfied. The opinion addressed the pending motions for summary judgment or partial summary judgment without resolving all issues such as damages.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In this patent case, Technology Licensing Corporation sued Technicolor USA for infringement of two patents related to video signal synchronization, and Technicolor filed counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity plus breach of a prior settlement covenant. After TLC accepted Technicolor's Rule 68 offer of judgment on the infringement claims, Technicolor sought to proceed with its remaining counterclaims. The court granted TLC's motion to dismiss, holding that the covenant not to sue eliminated any actual controversy needed for declaratory relief on invalidity, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law breach claim.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this employment discrimination case, African-American truck driver Edison Mayo sued his employer, Recycle to Conserve, Inc., alleging race discrimination and retaliation after he was terminated following a second workplace driving accident. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the termination complied with its accident policy and that Mayo failed to show he was qualified or that similarly situated employees were treated differently. The court denied the motion in relevant part, finding that Mayo presented sufficient circumstantial evidence—including repeated racial slurs by a co-worker, complaints to management about racist treatment and inadequate truck repairs, and indications that white drivers received better service—to raise triable issues of fact on whether the employer's stated reason was pretextual under the McDonnell Douglas framework.

civil rightslabor & employment

J & J Pumps sued Star Insurance after the insurer denied a claim under the employee dishonesty provision of a commercial property policy. The claim arose when an employee failed to pay the company's taxes to the IRS and EDD, instead hiding the funds in another account, resulting in about $40,000 in penalties and interest. The court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss, holding that the policy covers only direct physical loss of or damage to covered property and that the broadening endorsement did not remove this requirement. The alleged financial losses from penalties did not qualify as covered property damage, and the underlying dishonest-act exclusion was not overcome by the facts alleged.

business & regulatoryproperty

In McCarthy v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., two former Trade Marketing Representatives sued their employer under Title VII for sexual harassment and retaliation, under California's FEHA for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate, and for related tort claims based on adverse employment actions. The district court ruled on numerous evidentiary objections to deposition testimony and other evidence, sustaining some on hearsay and personal knowledge grounds while overruling others that could be cured at trial. It then examined the factual record showing a supervisor's vulgar comments about employees' personal lives and relationships, plaintiffs' complaints to HR, and subsequent changes in work assignments and discipline, ultimately finding triable issues on retaliation but insufficient evidence linking the conduct to sex or disability.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved plaintiffs who own land adjacent to a county-operated landfill in Merced County, alleging contamination and damage from volatile organic compounds migrating from the landfill, wind-blown trash and odors, runoff flooding, and creek debris. Following a four-day bench trial, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law on the remaining claims after partial summary judgment, which included inverse condemnation under the federal and state constitutions, trespass, nuisance, negligence, and due process violations. The court reasoned that inverse condemnation imposes strict liability on the government for physical damage to property substantially caused by a deliberately designed and constructed public improvement, without requiring foreseeability or fault, and proceeded to evaluate the evidence on each element and claim, ultimately addressing post-trial motions including for attorney's fees.

propertytorts & liabilityenvironment

Plaintiff Cecilia Argueta sued J.P. Morgan Chase, Quality Loan Service Corporation, and Freddie Mac over a 2007 mortgage refinance of her home and subsequent foreclosure proceedings, alleging the loan was predatory, unconscionable, and involved fraud, misrepresentation, unfair business practices, and violations of California Civil Code sections 2923.5 and 2923.6. Chase and Freddie Mac moved to dismiss the nine-count complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint in full, finding that the claims failed to state plausible causes of action, that many allegations concerned conduct by the original lender Washington Mutual for which the moving defendants were not liable, and that plaintiff had not opposed the motion or appeared at the hearing. The court applied California law to the servicing-related claims and determined that the pleaded facts did not support relief on any theory.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved AtPac, Inc. suing Aptitude Solutions, Inc., the County of Nevada, and Gregory J. Diaz for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets under California law, and copyright infringement related to software for county clerk-recorder systems. Aptitude moved for partial summary judgment on the trade secrets claim, arguing it was preempted by the copyright claim. The court addressed evidentiary objections, overruled most of them including those based on the sham affidavit rule, and explained that preemption under the Copyright Act depends on whether the state law claim falls within the subject matter of copyright, without addressing the merits of the trade secret claim itself.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerns a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by Peter Knowles against the City of Benicia and various police officers, alleging violations of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments arising from multiple incidents, including a December 23, 2007, encounter. Plaintiff moved for summary adjudication solely on the issue of Sergeant Frank Hartig's liability for entering Knowles's garage and arresting him without a warrant, consent, probable cause, or exigent circumstances after observing a vehicle commit traffic infractions. The court reviewed conflicting testimony about the pursuit, applied Fourth Amendment standards for warrantless home entries, and considered precedents limiting such entries for misdemeanors absent hot pursuit or other exigencies, ultimately resolving the qualified immunity question against Hartig.

criminal lawcivil rights

Plaintiff Jason Nielsen sued his former employer Trofholz Technologies, Inc. and several managers, alleging gender and disability discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination after he took medical leave and raised concerns about workplace conduct. Defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, contending there were no triable issues of material fact. The court granted the motion in full, holding that the employer articulated legitimate reasons for its actions—including a company reorganization triggered by the loss of its largest contract and documented performance issues—and that Nielsen failed to produce evidence showing those reasons were pretextual or that discrimination or retaliation played any role. The wrongful-termination claim was dismissed as derivative of the unsuccessful statutory claims.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves Technology Licensing Corporation (TLC) suing Thomson for patent infringement based on Thomson's use of specific Gennum and Elantec sync separator chips in its products, which TLC alleges practice its reissued patents on identifying video sync signals. Thomson moved for summary judgment, arguing that infringement claims for the GS4882, GS4982, EL4583, and EL4581 chips were barred by the Kessler doctrine and res judicata due to prior litigation and settlements involving those chips' manufacturers, and that no damages should be awarded before January 2010 for claims involving the EL4511 chip due to insufficient pre-suit notice. The court denied both motions, finding that the prior proceedings did not conclusively bar the current claims against Thomson and that TLC's original and amended complaints adequately alleged infringement of the relevant patents to provide notice. The decision rests on analysis of the scope of earlier rulings, the content of the pleadings, and standards for summary judgment under Rule 56.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved AtPac suing Aptitude Solutions, Nevada County, and Gregory Diaz for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement, and violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) after the county allegedly created an unauthorized user account granting Aptitude access to AtPac's proprietary source code on a segregated server. Defendants moved to dismiss the CFAA claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion, reasoning that the plaintiff failed to allege any recoverable "loss" under the CFAA because it did not claim costs to respond to computer damage or impairment, and economic harm or the defendants obtaining value exceeding $5,000 does not qualify for a civil action.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a challenge by the Freedom From Religion Foundation and its members to provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and corresponding California tax statutes that allow ministers to exclude housing allowances from gross income and claim related deductions. Plaintiffs argued these benefits violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. and California Constitutions by favoring religion. The court addressed motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to standing and Eleventh Amendment immunity, as well as for failure to state a claim. It denied the motions with respect to the challenge to IRC § 107, finding standing and that the claim could proceed, but granted the motions as to IRC § 265(a)(6) on grounds that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge that provision, and dismissed the state constitutional claims for lack of jurisdiction.

religious libertytaxes

In Lane v. Vitek Real Estate Industries Group, plaintiffs James and Dawna Lane sued Vitek, MERS, Aurora, CMI, and CWRC over claims arising from a 2003 mortgage refinance on their California home, including alleged misrepresentations about loan qualification, failure to provide required rescission notices, kickbacks, inadequate loan modification processes, and subsequent foreclosure proceedings. The court addressed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). Vitek was dismissed by stipulation, and the motions by MERS and CMI were granted, dismissing the claims against them because the complaint failed to plead plausible claims, such as the absence of a fiduciary duty in an arm's-length loan transaction and insufficient facts to support aiding-and-abetting or other allegations. The court also imposed sanctions on plaintiffs' counsel for failing to respond to the motions as required by local rules and allowed plaintiffs twenty days to amend consistent with the order.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involved Expert Microsystems suing the University of Chicago and ARCH Development Corporation to correct inventorship on two patents and claim ownership, alleging that their president contributed to the inventions but was not named as an inventor. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It applied the doctrine of laches, finding that the plaintiff unreasonably delayed filing suit for over six years after becoming aware of the patents through a prior art search, leading to economic prejudice for the defendants who invested in licensing the patents. The court rejected the plaintiff's unclean hands argument as it did not show the defendants' conduct caused the delay.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit by Technology Licensing Corp. against Thomson, Inc. concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 5,486,869 and 5,754,250. Elantec Semiconductor and Intersil moved to intervene for the limited purpose of staying aspects of the action related to Elantec chips pending resolution of separate state court license litigation and a declaratory judgment action. The court denied intervention as of right because Thomson could adequately represent the movants' interests in seeking a stay and denied permissive intervention because the movants did not seek full party status. The court also denied the stay, reasoning that it would bifurcate the litigation unnecessarily given other chips at issue, the federal action had already been pending for seven years, and federal courts hold exclusive jurisdiction over patent claims.

procedurefederal power

In Castaneda v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., plaintiffs Cesar and Suzzanne Castaneda sued Saxon, MERS, Novastar, and other defendants over a 2005 home refinance loan secured by a deed of trust on their Sacramento property, alleging they were directed into an unaffordable loan through inflated earnings reports and lack of Spanish-language documents, along with violations of TILA, RESPA, RFDCPA, UCL, fraud, negligence, breach of duties, and wrongful foreclosure. Saxon and MERS moved to dismiss the claims against them under Rule 12(b)(6), with Novastar joining, and the court treated the joinder as a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Applying the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard and accepting the complaint's allegations as true, the court examined each challenged claim, found that plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing plausible liability or required elements such as a duty of care, and dismissed all causes of action against MERS and Saxon.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiffs in an ERISA action against Hollister, Inc., alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by plan trustees in connection with a 1999 corporate transaction involving the HolliShare employee stock ownership plan. The district court had previously granted summary judgment to defendants in part, ruling that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to pursue make-whole monetary relief under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2) and that ERISA did not preempt certain stock restrictions in the company's articles and buy-back agreements. Plaintiffs argued that two intervening Ninth Circuit decisions—Harris v. Amgen, Inc. on standing in defined contribution plans and Johnson v. Couturier on ERISA preemption—warranted reconsideration. The court denied the motion, finding that Harris did not alter its redressability analysis because plaintiffs' claims depended on the independent actions of third parties, and that Johnson did not overrule prior precedent rejecting the argument that enforceable contracts qualify as preempting state law.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In this case, Sunstone Behavioral Health Inc. sued Alameda County Medical Center for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing regarding an Outpatient Psychiatric Consulting Contract. After the court awarded Sunstone $492,680.58 in damages following a bench trial, Sunstone moved for attorneys' fees and costs under the contract's fee provision and California Civil Code section 1717. Applying California law in this diversity action, the court held that the fee clause extended to enforcement of the entire contract, making Sunstone as the prevailing party entitled to reasonable fees and costs. The court granted $328,442.70 in attorneys' fees, $15,922.46 in untaxed costs, and $9,636.12 in taxable costs after reducing amounts deemed unreasonable or unnecessary.

business & regulatoryprocedure