Gary L. Taylor

This case involved two men who were denied a marriage license in Orange County, California, challenging the state's man-woman marriage statutes and sections 2 and 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act on grounds including equal protection, due process, privacy, and full faith and credit under the U.S. Constitution. The court abstained under the Pullman doctrine from deciding the constitutionality of the California statutes pending completion of related state court proceedings, reasoning that the case touched on sensitive social policy, a state ruling could moot or reshape the federal issues, and state law was uncertain. It upheld section 3 of DOMA as constitutional, concluding that the opposite-sex limitation on federal marriage benefits was a rational classification that did not implicate a fundamental right to marry the person of one's choice.

civil rightsfamily lawfederal powerprocedure

In Doran v. Del Taco, Inc., a paraplegic plaintiff who uses a wheelchair sued a restaurant under the Americans with Disabilities Act and related California statutes, alleging that architectural barriers prevented full and equal access. The parties settled the underlying claims for injunctive relief and damages, leaving only the plaintiff's motion for nearly $40,000 in attorneys' fees to be decided by the court. The court denied the fee request in its entirety. It held that, as an exercise of discretion under 42 U.S.C. § 12205, recovery of attorneys' fees requires the plaintiff to have first provided the defendant with an unambiguous pre-litigation warning notice that specifically identified the claimed violations and afforded a reasonable opportunity to cure them. The court found the letter sent in this case insufficiently specific and therefore concluded that the lawsuit had not been shown to be necessary.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves a copyright infringement dispute where plaintiff Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. alleged that defendant BPI Communications, Inc. infringed copyrights in seven photographs of Marilyn Monroe by including them in the book Blonde Heat without permission. Defendant moved for summary judgment on grounds of waiver via a prior settlement release and lack of infringement, while plaintiff cross-moved on infringement and affirmative defenses. The court denied defendant's waiver motion due to conflicting extrinsic evidence on the parties' intent regarding whether the release extended to Photofest's customers, creating a triable issue. It granted defendant's infringement motion because the photographs had been distributed to the public without copyright notice, constituting general publication that invalidated the copyrights and placed the works in the public domain, while denying plaintiff's infringement motion as moot on other issues. The motions on affirmative defenses were rendered moot by the infringement ruling.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case concerned whether a California school district must provide parents of special education students with copies of their children's copyrighted test protocols under California Education Code section 56504, or whether federal copyright law prevents such disclosure. The court ruled that providing the copies constitutes fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107 and that federal copyright law does not preempt the state statute. The district had standing to seek declaratory relief because it faced a real threat of liability from copyright owners if it complied with the state's compliance order. The core reasoning focused on the fair use factors, including the nonprofit educational purpose for parents preparing for IEP meetings, the limited nature of the copying, and the lack of market harm to the test publishers when appropriate safeguards like confidentiality agreements are used.

civil rightsproperty

The case involves a former employee suing his employer, a seller of heating and cooling equipment, under the federal False Claims Act and equivalent California and Nevada statutes. The plaintiff alleged that the company had a policy of selling items to government employees for personal use while billing government entities, and he brought claims for false claims violations, conspiracy, and employment retaliation after his termination. Defendants moved to dismiss the state-law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 31 U.S.C. § 3732(b), arguing that no single transaction involved both federal and state payments. The court denied the motion, holding that the statutory “same transaction or occurrence” requirement is satisfied by an alleged system or scheme of false claims. The decision relied on analogies to broad judicial interpretations of similar phrasing in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 13, 15, and 20, which treat company policies or continuous courses of conduct as a single transaction.

procedurecriminal law

The case involved a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Jaime Pano after his state court convictions for kidnapping, carjacking, second-degree robbery, and making terrorist threats, all with firearm enhancements, resulting in a 20-year prison sentence. Pano claimed that federal and state due process required trial courts to provide defendants notice and a meaningful opportunity to object before applying waiver to claims of sentencing error. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denied the petition, and dismissed the action. The court reasoned that under AEDPA standards, the state court's rejection of the claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as Pano had received an adequate opportunity to object during the sentencing hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

In Johnson v. Lewis, a state prisoner convicted in 1999 of possession of cocaine base and marijuana for sale filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after his direct appeals and state collateral proceedings. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the petition and dismissing the action with prejudice. The court held that the petition was untimely under AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations, which began running when the conviction became final on January 16, 2001, and was not tolled by the prisoner's later state filings or entitled to equitable tolling due to the absence of extraordinary circumstances or diligence. The decision focused solely on the procedural bar without reaching the merits of the ineffective assistance claims.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerns the American Bar Association's decision to withdraw provisional accreditation from Western State University College of Law after finding the school had not made satisfactory progress toward full compliance with ABA standards within the required timeframe. Western State and two students sued, alleging violations of the Higher Education Act, common-law due process, the APA, the Fifth Amendment, and antitrust laws based on the ABA's alleged failure to follow its own procedural rules regarding timing of reports, appeals, and reconsideration. The court granted a preliminary injunction preventing the ABA from implementing any final withdrawal of accreditation or removal from the approved list pending a merits decision, to preserve the status quo. The reasoning centered on the balance of hardships favoring the plaintiffs, the risk of irreparable harm to the school and students, and the need to allow resolution of the procedural and substantive claims before any final action.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In this ERISA case, a participant in a long-term employee disability benefit plan sued after denial of benefits and moved for partial summary judgment to establish de novo review as the proper standard. The court granted the motion, ruling that the plan language authorizing the administrator to control the policy, administer claims, and interpret the policy granted decision-making authority but did not unambiguously confer discretionary authority. Under Ninth Circuit precedent such as Ingram v. Martin Marietta and Sandy v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., only an express and unambiguous grant of discretion triggers abuse-of-discretion review; the court followed the more recent Ingram test over earlier authority like Bendixen v. Standard Ins. Co. and declined to reach the timeliness issue.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case arose from lawsuits by investors against banks that distributed Enron notes, alleging violations of California securities and unfair competition laws after Enron's collapse. The cases were filed in California state court, removed to bankruptcy court based on the Enron bankruptcy proceedings, and involved motions to remand and to transfer venue. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision to remand the cases to state court. Although "related to" bankruptcy jurisdiction existed because of the banks' potential indemnity claims against Enron, the court found that equitable factors strongly favored remand, including the predominance of state law issues, the non-core nature of the proceedings, the demand for a jury trial, the remote connection to the bankruptcy estate, and principles of comity.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case under the Fair Labor Standards Act, named plaintiffs sued their employer for unpaid overtime wages and sought to proceed as a representative action under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), prompting the court to authorize notice to prospective plaintiffs. Before that notice was sent, the defendant distributed an internal memorandum to its sales agents advising them of the lawsuit and offering to direct questions to its general counsel. Plaintiffs then applied for an order barring the defendant from communicating with prospective plaintiffs and requiring payment for a corrective notice. The court denied the application, holding that in a § 216(b) action a defendant may communicate with prospective plaintiffs who have not yet opted in, unless the communication undermines or contradicts the court's own notice. The reasoning rested on the absence of any attorney-client relationship until opt-in occurs, distinguishing the situation from a certified Rule 23 class action and aligning it instead with pre-certification communications in Rule 23 cases.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Kyjen Co. suing Vo-Toys for copyright infringement on eight specific plush pet toy designs, such as Stanley the Stingray and various Bungee Series items, and for trademark infringement over the term "bungee." The district court granted Kyjen's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that Kyjen held valid copyrights because its founder Hansen was the sole author who exercised artistic control over the designs despite input from a translator and manufacturer. The court found Vo-Toys' toys substantially similar in design elements and that Vo-Toys had used the "bungee" mark in connection with its own toys, leading to an injunction against further manufacturing, distribution, and use of the mark. Core reasoning included the absence of genuine issues of material fact on authorship and copying, application of copyright standards requiring original fixed expression, and trademark analysis treating "bungee" as protectable in this context.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a widow seeking payment on her deceased husband's $200,000 life insurance policy from Valley Forge Life Insurance Company after he died of pancreatic cancer; the insurer denied the claim, asserting the policy never took effect because the insured failed to disclose his cancer diagnosis, which changed his health between the July 1998 application and the November 1998 delivery of valid payment. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion. The core reasoning was that the policy's good health provision was a condition precedent requiring the insured's health to remain as represented in the application until delivery and payment, which was not satisfied here, and that the insurer did not waive its rights through later communications or by initially characterizing the transaction as a reinstatement.

business & regulatory

This case involved a dispute over disability insurance benefits paid to a podiatric surgeon who claimed carpal tunnel syndrome prevented him from practicing. The insurer, Provident Life, sought declaratory relief and restitution, arguing that the policy's "appropriate care" provision required the insured to undergo carpal tunnel release surgery, which it described as a low-risk procedure that could resolve the disability after conservative treatments failed. The insured countered that the provision did not explicitly require surgery and that benefits could not be conditioned on it without clear language. The court ruled that the policy language creates an objective duty to accept appropriate medical treatment, which under some circumstances can include surgery, and that this interpretation aligns with standard principles of California insurance contract construction without implying duties beyond the contract terms or violating public policy on patient autonomy. The court found a triable issue of fact on whether surgery was appropriate in this case, denying summary adjudication.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

In this case, plaintiff Hoefer, a former Fluor Daniel employee, alleged he was suspended and terminated in retaliation for filing two qui tam actions under the Federal False Claims Act accusing the company of overbilling the government. Hoefer brought claims under the Federal False Claims Act, the California False Claims Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1985 for conspiracy, and state-law wrongful employment retaliation. The court dismissed the California False Claims Act claim, holding that the statute protects only whistleblowers reporting false claims against the state or its subdivisions, not federal ones. It also dismissed the § 1985 claim, applying the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine that a corporation cannot conspire with its own employees or agents. The court denied dismissal of the state wrongful discharge claim, finding it was not preempted by the Federal False Claims Act.

labor & employmentcriminal lawfederal power

The case involved a disabled plaintiff who sued a gas station owner under the Americans with Disabilities Act for architectural barriers at one location in Santa Fe Springs, California, and sought to amend the complaint to add similar claims for 82 other stations owned by the defendant across the state. The plaintiff had not visited those other locations or suffered any personal injury there. The court denied the motion to amend the federal ADA claim, holding that standing under the ADA's anti-barrier provisions is site-specific and requires the plaintiff to show actual injury in fact at each location under Article III and prudential standing rules, which prohibit generalized grievances or assertions of third-party rights. The court granted the motion as to the plaintiff's state-law claims, to which the defendant raised no opposition.

civil rightsprocedure

In Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., photographer Kelly sued visual search engine operator Ditto (formerly Arriba) for copyright infringement after its crawler indexed and displayed thumbnail versions of his images, and for DMCA violations by allegedly removing copyright management information. The court found a prima facie case of infringement because the images were reproduced and displayed without authorization, but held that the fair use doctrine applied under 17 U.S.C. § 107 given the transformative purpose of the thumbnails for enabling image searches, their limited nature relative to the originals, and lack of market harm to the photographer. The court also ruled no DMCA violation occurred. It granted the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute over the final attorneys' fee owed to the Hennigan firm under a 1996 retainer agreement for representing the litigation Representative in multiple complex liability actions stemming from Orange County's 1994 municipal bankruptcy and $1.6 billion investment losses. The parties had rejected contingency fee proposals and instead agreed to monthly billing at benchmark hourly rates, with a final adjustment possible based on results and other factors, though the agreement specified consultation before any major increase. The court interpreted the contract strictly against the attorneys, rejecting a lodestar multiplier or contingency-like enhancement that would convert the hourly agreement into something the clients had declined, and awarded an additional $3 million fee beyond the $26 million already paid in hourly rates, finding it consistent with the benchmark magnitude given the $865 million recovery.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a motorist who filed a citizen complaint against a Long Beach police officer following a traffic stop; after the department found no misconduct, the officer threatened a defamation suit under California Civil Code § 47.5, which creates a special exception allowing peace officers to sue for false complaints made with malice, unlike the general privilege for complaints against other public officials. The plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the statute violated his First Amendment rights, and the court addressed issues of standing, state action, and constitutionality. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, holding § 47.5 unconstitutional. The core reasoning was that the statute specially burdened speech about police misconduct by removing the usual privilege for citizen complaints, creating an unequal rule that chilled protected expression in a manner not applicable to other officials.

free speechcivil rights

In Hoefer v. Fluor Daniel, Inc., a former employee alleged retaliation by his employer after he filed qui tam lawsuits under the Federal False Claims Act accusing the company of overbilling the federal government; the plaintiff brought claims under the California False Claims Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1985 for conspiracy, and a state-law wrongful discharge tort. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss those three claims. It held that the California False Claims Act protects only whistleblowers reporting false claims against the state or its subdivisions, not federal ones. The court applied the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine to bar the § 1985 claim because a corporation cannot conspire with its own employees or agents. Finally, it ruled that the Federal False Claims Act preempts the state tort claim for wrongful retaliation in this context.

labor & employmentcriminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure