Robert Mitsuhiro Takasugi

The case involved a defendant convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), with the government seeking a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), based on one adult conviction and three prior juvenile adjudications for violent felonies. The defendant moved for acquittal on the enhancement under Rule 29, arguing that United States v. Tighe barred the use of juvenile adjudications as predicate offenses. The court granted the motion, holding that the juvenile adjudications could not serve as ACCA predicates because the defendant was not afforded the right to a jury trial in those proceedings, consistent with Tighe's analysis of Apprendi's prior conviction exception and further considerations under Blakely v. Washington. The core reasoning emphasized constitutional differences between adult convictions and juvenile adjudications, which lack equivalent procedural safeguards, precluding their use to enhance the sentence beyond the statutory maximum without jury findings.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hart v. Gaioni, plaintiffs sued federal prosecutors and agents under Bivens, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights based on claims that defendants leaked grand jury information about plaintiffs' attorney to the press and used it to seek his disqualification in separate underlying civil rights cases, thereby interfering with plaintiffs' access to the courts. The court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. It held that the USAO defendants were entitled to absolute immunity from claims arising out of their filing of judicial inquiry notices regarding potential conflicts of interest, because such actions are intimately associated with the judicial process. The court denied as moot the motions to stay discovery and for Chuman certification.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

This case involves claims by the United States and plaintiff-intervenors against mobile home park owners and managers for maintaining rules that restricted children's access to facilities like pools, clubhouses, and streets based on age. The court considered a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that these rules at several parks violated the Fair Housing Act's prohibitions on familial status discrimination and an injunction against their enforcement at the current parks. The court granted the motion, finding no genuine issues of material fact and holding that the age-based restrictions were discriminatory, lacked justification as the least restrictive means for health or safety, and amounted to illegal steering. It reasoned that explicit rules limiting minors' use of recreational areas without adult supervision or at specific times directly conflicted with the Act's protections.

civil rightsproperty

In United States v. Rahmani, the defendants were indicted on charges of conspiring and providing material support to the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), a group designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the Secretary of State under 8 U.S.C. § 1189 and 18 U.S.C. § 2339B. The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, relying on the D.C. Circuit's decision in National Council of Resistance of Iran v. Department of State, which held that the designation process denies due process by failing to provide the designated organization with notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The district court granted the motion, ruling that the unconstitutional designation procedure under Section 1189 could not serve as a valid predicate for the criminal charges, even though the D.C. Circuit had not set aside the specific MEK designation. The court reasoned that the statute's lack of procedural protections for entities with constitutional rights rendered it invalid as applied, precluding its use in prosecutions regardless of when the conduct occurred.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal power

The case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Milos Klvana, a state prisoner convicted by a jury in 1989 of nine counts of second-degree murder and numerous other charges, including practicing medicine without a license, insurance fraud, and perjury. The convictions stemmed from Klvana's actions as a physician performing deliveries in clinics and homes, where nine infants died due to what the prosecution argued was implied malice from extreme departures from the standard of care, such as failing to monitor high-risk patients or respond to signs of distress. After state courts affirmed the convictions on direct appeal, Klvana sought federal relief claiming insufficient evidence and other errors. The U.S. District Court, adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after de novo review, denied the petition and dismissed the action with prejudice, finding no basis to overturn the state court's determinations on the sufficiency of evidence for implied malice or other claims.

criminal lawhealthcareprocedure

Dep Corporation, which owns the registered trademark "L.A. LOOKS" for hair care products and had begun expanding the mark to other mass-market goods including sunglasses, sued Opti-Ray, Inc. for federal and common-law trademark infringement, unfair competition, and related state claims after Opti-Ray began selling sunglasses bearing the similar mark "LA LOOK." The district court granted Dep's motion for a preliminary injunction. It found that Dep had shown a likelihood of success on the merits because it owned a valid mark, Opti-Ray used a confusingly similar mark without consent, and such use was likely to cause consumer confusion as to source or sponsorship. The court also held that irreparable injury was presumed once infringement was shown and that the balance of hardships favored Dep, satisfying the standard for preliminary relief under Ninth Circuit precedent.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a City of Pomona ordinance requiring commercial signs with foreign alphabetical characters to allocate at least half their area to English characters and to display addresses in Arabic numerals of a minimum size. Plaintiff Asian American Business Group challenged the ordinance under the First Amendment (speech and association), Fourteenth Amendment (due process and equal protection), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court dismissed the association claim, denied summary judgment on the § 1981 claim due to factual disputes over intent, and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on the remaining claims, declaring the ordinance unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement. The court reasoned that the ordinance regulated noncommercial speech by restricting cultural and national-origin expression through language choice, triggering strict scrutiny, and that the city's interest in emergency identification was not narrowly tailored given the separate address requirement and the ordinance's limited and discriminatory application. The court applied the same strict-scrutiny analysis to the equal-protection claim, finding the classification based on use of foreign characters insufficiently justified.

free speechcivil rights

This case involves a pension trust fund suing an investment manager, a brokerage firm, and a broker for allegedly conspiring to direct trades exclusively through the brokerage at non-competitive rates, resulting in losses of $167,000, in violation of ERISA fiduciary standards and the parties' agreement. The plaintiffs brought state-law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and fraud, plus a federal securities fraud claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. The court denied the motion to dismiss the state-law claims, holding that ERISA does not preempt such claims against non-fiduciaries even when they allegedly conspire with a fiduciary, because the statute does not regulate non-fiduciary conduct. The court granted the motion to dismiss the securities claim with leave to amend, finding the complaint failed to adequately identify the security involved or plead reliance on a misrepresentation in connection with its purchase or sale.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a motion by plaintiff C & C Organization for a preliminary injunction against defendants Agds, Inc. and related parties, alleging trademark infringement under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act by their use of confusingly similar names such as "CASQUE" to plaintiff's established marks "CASK 'N CLEAVER" and "CASK." The court granted the injunction, finding that plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits through evidence of secondary meaning acquired over more than twenty years of exclusive use in the Los Angeles market, substantial sales and advertising, and a likelihood of consumer confusion including instances of actual confusion. The court also determined there was a possibility of irreparable harm from lost sales and goodwill that could not be adequately remedied at law. Defendants' affirmative defenses of laches and estoppel were rejected due to lack of evidence showing unreasonable delay or prejudice. The ruling applied the Ninth Circuit's standards for preliminary injunctions, balancing the hardships and requiring a bond of $10,000.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the U.S. Department of Justice's efforts under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) to investigate conditions at Los Angeles County juvenile halls, which the County and a juvenile court judge blocked by requiring case-by-case court orders, limiting expert consultants, and imposing state-law confidentiality rules under California Welfare and Institutions Code § 827. The United States sued for a preliminary injunction to gain access to the facilities, juveniles, and records. The court granted the injunction, holding that CRIPA preempts the state restrictions and that the County's conditions constituted an obstruction of the federal investigation. The core reasoning was that federal authority to conduct thorough, system-wide probes into institutional conditions cannot be limited by state procedures, even when those procedures aim to protect juvenile confidentiality, and that the DOJ had attempted to accommodate legitimate local concerns without success.

civil rightsfederal power

The case involves the Colorado River Indian Tribes and the Sierra Club suing federal agencies including the Army Corps of Engineers, state officials, and a developer to block a permit for placing riprap along the Colorado River to stabilize the bank for a proposed 156-acre residential and commercial development. The plaintiffs claimed the Corps violated NEPA, NHPA, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and First Amendment rights by retracting a draft environmental impact statement and issuing the permit without a thorough cultural resources survey or analysis of impacts on archaeological sites and tribal lands across the river. The court found that the Corps' decision was based on an inadequate assessment under its own proposed regulations and failed to evaluate significant effects on historic and cultural resources. It granted a preliminary injunction against the permit and further construction, concluding there was a likelihood of success on the merits and a possibility of irreparable harm.

environmentreligious libertycivil rightsfederal power

The court opinion consists of an order by District Judge Takasugi vacating a prior ruling in the matter of Hurley v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines. Specifically, the judge directs that the April 11, 1983 order, previously reported at 562 F.Supp. 260, be set aside. No further details about the underlying dispute or the basis for vacatur are included in this order.

procedure

This case involved a class action by retired or disabled construction laborers who participated in the Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California but were denied pension benefits because they had accrued between 10 and 15 years of credited service, falling short of the plan's 15-year vesting requirement. The plaintiffs challenged decisions by the plan trustees in 1970 to increase monthly benefit levels substantially while retaining the high vesting threshold. The court found the trustees and trust liable for violating 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(5), ruling that the combination of a high exclusion rate and unusually high benefits lacked a substantial and verifiable justification and thus constituted an arbitrary and capricious structural defect in the trust. The defendant union was found not liable, as it had no role in setting eligibility rules and did not breach its duty of fair representation.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a passenger's claim for personal injury sustained on a KLM flight from Amsterdam to Los Angeles, pursuant to a round-trip ticket purchased from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, to California and back. Defendant KLM moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction under Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention because the "place of destination" referred only to the ultimate destination on the ticket, which would be Jeddah as the point of origin for a round trip. The court denied the motion, concluding that California qualified as a place of destination for jurisdictional purposes. It reasoned that the Warsaw Convention's undefined term "place of destination" permits at least two such locations in round-trip scenarios, to be assessed case-by-case based on factors including the passenger's intent, the nature of the stop, and its duration, rather than a mechanical "ultimate destination" rule.

procedure

In United States v. DeLorean, media outlets including the Associated Press moved to vacate a district court order requiring all case documents to be filed in camera and under seal, arguing that the order violated the First Amendment right of public access to criminal trials as recognized in Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia and U.S. v. Brooklier. The court denied the motion, holding that no such constitutional right of access extends to documents filed in criminal proceedings. The court reasoned that Richmond Newspapers and Brooklier addressed public access to in-court proceedings such as trials, voir dire, and suppression hearings, but did not establish or suggest a right of access to incidental filings, which fall outside the scope of a "criminal trial." The December 22, 1982 sealing order was therefore upheld to balance Sixth Amendment fair-trial rights with any applicable access considerations.

free speechcriminal lawprocedure

This case involved plaintiff David seeking a refund from the IRS for employment taxes he personally paid on behalf of Grand Care Inc., a corporation he managed and owned majority stock in, which had ceased operations. The court held that David had standing to sue for the refund under 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) and was entitled to recover $13,781.95 plus interest. The reasoning was that his claim was timely filed, he paid the taxes under the mistaken belief he was personally liable as an officer, and there was no actual tax obligation owed by him personally, as the assessments were against the corporation.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involves the U.S. government's seizure of Gerovital H3 lotion and tablets shipped from Romania to Mexico via U.S. airports, with the government seeking forfeiture and destruction of the drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The court ruled that the items should be condemned and forfeited for destruction. The core reasoning is that Gerovital qualifies as a new drug without an approved new drug application, its shipment constituted introduction into interstate commerce, and the statutory bond exemption for in-transit merchandise does not apply to imports prohibited under the Act.

business & regulatoryhealthcarefederal power

This case involves plaintiffs seeking damages for alleged violations of the Commodity Exchange Act in commodity futures transactions from 1976. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has exclusive initial jurisdiction, requiring exhaustion of administrative reparations proceedings before federal court involvement. The court denied the motion, holding that an implied private right of action under the CEA persists in federal courts without prior exhaustion of CFTC remedies. The reasoning relied on the Cort v. Ash test for implying private rights, legislative history indicating the reparations process supplements rather than replaces court jurisdiction, and the CFTC's own interpretation allowing choice of forums, as supported by the explicit language in 7 U.S.C. § 2 preserving federal court jurisdiction.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved federal indictments against officials from Teamsters Locals 186 and 389 for alleged vandalism, including truck burnings, during a 1978 strike to organize Redman Moving and Storage employees, charging violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952, 844(i), and 1962(d) as well as 29 U.S.C. § 501(c). The court dismissed Counts 4 and 5 under 18 U.S.C. § 1952. It reasoned that the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Enmons, which found no federal criminal liability under the Hobbs Act for violence used to pursue legitimate union objectives like better wages during lawful strikes, extends beyond extortion cases to bar federal prosecution here absent evidence of personal gain or racketeering unrelated to collective bargaining. The ruling emphasized congressional intent to leave such labor disputes to state courts and to avoid expanding federal jurisdiction over strike conduct without clear statutory direction.

criminal lawlabor & employment

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition by a state prisoner convicted in 1975 of multiple counts of kidnapping for robbery, robbery, burglary, and conspiracy. The petitioner claimed his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move to suppress physical evidence, including briefcases and their contents obtained during a warrantless search, despite the court's invitation to do so. The district court reviewed the record, conducted an evidentiary hearing, and found that counsel's inaction deprived the petitioner of a Fourth Amendment challenge that could have affected the outcome, particularly given issues with corroborating accomplice testimony. The court conditionally granted the writ, ordering the petitioner's release unless the state permits him to file a Penal Code § 1538.5 suppression motion in superior court within sixty days. The decision rests on the determination that the failure to pursue suppression constituted a constitutional violation under the Sixth Amendment.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights