The case involved the U.S. government's civil forfeiture action against $49,790 seized from a FedEx package in California after a narcotics detection dog alerted to it, alleging the currency was connected to drug trafficking under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6). The claimant asserted ownership and claimed the money originated from a home mortgage loan that he had withdrawn and stored. After converting the parties' summary judgment motions into a bench trial on the written record, the court evaluated the evidence, including the dog's alert, packaging details, and the claimant's inconsistent testimony about the money's handling and location. The court found the government's evidence credible and the claimant's innocent-owner narrative not believable, concluding that the claimant failed to prove innocent ownership by a preponderance of the evidence. It therefore granted the government's forfeiture motion and denied the claimant's request for return of the currency.
This case involved Jeanne Nolan's ERISA claim against MetLife, the administrator of her employer's long-term disability benefits plan, after MetLife terminated her benefits in 2004 following a workplace injury. The district court, adopting in large part a magistrate judge's report and recommendation after de novo review, granted Nolan's motion for judgment on the administrative record and denied MetLife's cross-motion. The court found that MetLife abused its discretion by relying on opinions from non-examining physician consultants who required objective evidence of functional disability and pain despite Nolan's accepted radiculopathy diagnosis, without evidence of any improvement in her condition since benefits began, and in light of structural concerns about bias in MetLife's referral process to the review company. The decision followed prior Ninth Circuit guidance emphasizing that pain is subjective and that reversal of benefits requires some indication of changed circumstances.
Jorge Sanchez, serving a 15-to-life sentence for second-degree murder after a 1990 DUI incident, filed a federal habeas petition under 28 USC § 2254 challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings' denial of parole at his 2005 hearing, which followed the governor's reversal of an earlier suitability finding. The court granted the petition after supplemental briefing on Hayward v. Marshall, concluding that the state courts' upholding of the denial was an unreasonable application of California's 'some evidence' requirement and based on an unreasonable factual determination. The board's cited factors—the commitment offense, claimed lack of insight into alcohol abuse and stress, and decades-old probation violations—lacked a rational connection to current dangerousness, as the petitioner had shown consistent AA participation and other positive factors. The court ordered the board to set a parole date within 30 days.
In this case, Theme Promotions sued News America Marketing for antitrust violations under the Cartwright Act along with other claims, ultimately prevailing at trial on restraint of trade and related tort claims with a damages judgment of about $3.5 million that was affirmed on appeal. Theme then moved for attorney fees, costs, and interest as the prevailing party. The court granted the motion in full, awarding over $3 million in fees plus costs and interest calculated from the judgment date. The reasoning applied California law's lodestar method for fee calculation under the fee-shifting provision of the Cartwright Act, allowing recovery for all work reasonably undertaken to advance the successful antitrust recovery even though Theme prevailed on only some of its original claims, as the claims arose from the same facts and conduct.
This case was a class action lawsuit brought by independent distributors against McKee Foods Corporation alleging violations of California Labor Code overtime requirements along with claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, unfair business practices, and declaratory relief, centered on whether the distributors were employees or independent contractors. The parties reached a settlement after mediation and sought final court approval under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The court granted final approval of the settlement and related motions for attorney fees, costs, and class representative incentive payments, finding the agreement fundamentally fair, adequate, and reasonable based on factors including the tenuous strength of the plaintiffs' claims, risks and costs of further litigation, stage of proceedings, and positive class member response with no objections. The court applied a lodestar cross-check to confirm the fee award was reasonable given the case's weaknesses.
This case involved plaintiffs Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation and two U.S. citizen attorneys who alleged that federal officials, including the NSA, conducted warrantless electronic surveillance of their international telephone conversations in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Plaintiffs sought civil damages under FISA section 1810. After prior rulings established that FISA provides a civil remedy and preempts the state secrets privilege here, the court required the parties to litigate this phase using only non-classified evidence. Plaintiffs presented sufficient non-classified evidence to prove they were "aggrieved persons" subjected to unlawful surveillance without a FISA warrant and to establish standing and the absence of material factual disputes. The court granted plaintiffs summary judgment on liability, denied defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, and dismissed individual-capacity claims against FBI Director Mueller because his actions were official only.
