Vaughn R. Walker

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 The claimant asserted ownership and claimed the money originated from a home mortgage loan that he had withdrawn and stored.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.

criminal lawproperty

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.

labor & employmenthealthcare

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

The case involved hunters and the nonprofit Conservation Force challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's seizure and administrative forfeiture of imported sport-hunted trophies, such as leopards from Zambia and Namibia, after determining the accompanying CITES permits were invalid; plaintiffs alleged violations of CAFRA, the APA, the ESA, the Eighth Amendment, and due process. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint with prejudice. It held that the trophies were derivative contraband because they were imported without valid permits under the ESA and CITES, that CAFRA limited judicial review of the forfeiture process to claims of insufficient notice, and that Conservation Force lacked standing because it failed to allege injury to any specific member or a final agency action redressable under the APA.

environmentprocedurefederal power

This case involved Riverport Insurance Company seeking declaratory relief that it had no duty to defend or indemnify defendants John Stewart Company and Loren Sanborn in an underlying state court habitability lawsuit, along with related counterclaims by the defendants. The court had previously granted summary judgment to Riverport on the duty to defend and indemnify based on a policy exclusion. On the remaining counterclaims, the court granted Riverport's motion for summary judgment, holding that the defendants were not entitled to notice of policy cancellation because they were additional insureds rather than named insureds under the policy language, and that no bad faith claim could proceed without an underlying coverage obligation. The court rejected arguments for additional discovery and professional liability coverage, adopting its prior analysis that the habitability claims fell outside the policy.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Plaintiffs, a class of Nuvelo shareholders, alleged that the biopharmaceutical company and its officers violated federal securities laws by making misleading statements and omissions about the design, risks, and prospects of phase 3 clinical trials for its lead drug alfimeprase during a 2006 class period, thereby inflating the stock price. After the court previously dismissed an earlier complaint with leave to amend, it addressed defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, first granting judicial notice of public FDA-related and market documents to show information available during the class period. The court held that the SAC adequately pleaded falsity and scienter for most alleged misstatements and omissions under the PSLRA heightened standards but dismissed the claim regarding a secret product profile as non-misleading, resulting in the motion being granted in part and denied in part.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case Pecover v. Electronics Arts Inc. involved plaintiffs who purchased Madden NFL video games suing EA for allegedly monopolizing the market for interactive football software by securing exclusive licensing agreements with major football leagues and associations. Plaintiffs asserted claims under section 2 of the Sherman Act, California's Cartwright Act and Unfair Competition Act, and other state laws, seeking injunctive relief and damages. EA moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the claims were barred by the Illinois Brick indirect purchaser doctrine, that exclusive licenses are lawful, and that plaintiffs lacked standing for claims in states where they did not purchase the games. The court denied the motion as to the Sherman Act section 2 claim and related California and District of Columbia claims, reasoning that Illinois Brick does not apply to injunctive relief and that the aggregation of multiple exclusive agreements could plausibly restrain competition, but granted dismissal of claims under the laws of other states due to lack of standing.

business & regulatory

This case originated as a putative class action by former Starbucks assistant managers alleging violations of California Labor Code wage and hour provisions, claiming the company required off-the-clock work to avoid overtime payments. After the court granted summary judgment on one plaintiff's claims and denied class certification due to predominant individual issues, the named plaintiffs settled with Starbucks and agreed not to appeal the certification denial. Putative class member Shaun Nguyen then moved to intervene under FRCP 24 solely to appeal the denial of class certification. The court granted the motion, finding it timely (filed within 30 days of judgment), that Nguyen had a significant protectible interest in the class claims that would be impaired without intervention, and that the settling parties did not adequately represent that interest; it also granted Nguyen ten days to file his notice of appeal.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns claims by the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation and two of its attorneys that the government conducted warrantless electronic surveillance of their communications as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, in violation of FISA and various constitutional provisions. The court addressed cross-motions regarding the sufficiency of the plaintiffs' amended complaint to establish their status as aggrieved persons under FISA and their request to obtain classified materials under 50 U.S.C. § 1806(f). It ruled that the case should proceed by directing in camera review of a sealed document, expediting top-secret security clearances for plaintiffs' lead counsel and up to two team members, and requiring the government to review and potentially declassify prior submissions. The core reasoning was that these steps were necessary to adjudicate whether plaintiffs could access evidence and litigate their claims without improper disclosure of classified information, following the Ninth Circuit's remand on FISA's interaction with the state secrets privilege.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

This case involved plaintiff Stanmore Cooper's claim that the FAA, SSA, and DOT violated the Privacy Act by improperly sharing his personal records, including HIV-related disability information, during a joint Operation Safe Pilot investigation that cross-referenced pilot medical data with SSA benefits to detect fraud. The court found that the agencies had indeed disclosed records in violation of the Privacy Act's restrictions but granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied the plaintiff's motion. The core reasoning was that the Privacy Act's provision for recovery of 'actual damages' requires proof of pecuniary loss, not merely emotional distress or mental injury, and this interpretation must be strictly construed in favor of the government due to sovereign immunity principles, with no such pecuniary damages shown here.

civil rightsprocedure

This case concerns a lawsuit by Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation and two of its attorneys against federal officials and agencies, alleging that the NSA engaged in warrantless electronic surveillance of their communications in violation of FISA's civil and criminal provisions, leading to the freezing of the organization's assets. On remand from the Ninth Circuit, the district court addressed whether FISA preempts the state secrets privilege invoked by defendants to block the claims. The court held that FISA preempts and displaces the state secrets privilege for purposes of electronic surveillance claims under the statute, but determined that plaintiffs must first establish they are "aggrieved persons" under FISA to obtain remedies such as damages or evidence suppression. The FISA claim was therefore dismissed with leave to amend the complaint within thirty days to make that showing, while non-FISA claims were to be addressed separately if pursued.

criminal lawcivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a dispute under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) section 512(f), where plaintiff John Doe (Brian Sapient) alleged that defendants Explorologist Ltd. and Uri Geller, based in England, knowingly misrepresented in a takedown notice to YouTube that one of plaintiff's video postings infringed their copyrights, seeking damages and a declaratory judgment of noninfringement. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, among other grounds, arguing that the notice originated outside the United States and that exercising jurisdiction over foreign defendants would be improper. The court granted the motion to dismiss solely on personal jurisdiction grounds, finding that defendants lacked sufficient minimum contacts with California and that jurisdiction would not comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice under the Due Process Clause. The opinion notes that plaintiff could pursue the claim as a counterclaim in a related Pennsylvania action and that the DMCA's structure intentionally does not impose jurisdiction consent requirements on copyright owners sending takedown notices.

procedure

The case involves an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision denying recovery under a joint venture agreement for profits from a condominium development project. Plaintiff Wei Suen, as assignee of Dong Fu's interest, sought Fu's 25% share of proceeds from the sale of units built on the property, but the bankruptcy court ruled that Fu's unlicensed contractor status barred recovery under California Business and Professions Code § 7031. The district court reversed, holding that the agreement established a joint venture where Fu held an ownership interest rather than compensation for contracting services, relying on precedent that such interests are enforceable and assignable even without a contractor's license. The court remanded for determination of the exact amount due.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved Joyce Yamagiwa, trustee of the Beachwood Property in Half Moon Bay, suing the City for inverse condemnation under federal law and related state claims of nuisance, trespass, and recovery for public improvements, alleging the City's Terrace Avenue Assessment District (TAAD) project caused wetlands to develop on the previously undeveloped 24.7-acre parcel. After a bench trial with extensive expert testimony and exhibits, the court made findings that pre-TAAD topography showed gentle slopes without closed-loop depressions or standing water, while the City's grading and construction created a damming effect along the northern boundary that impeded natural surface flows and led to wetland formation. The court concluded the TAAD project was a substantial cause of the changed conditions on the property, establishing liability on the inverse condemnation and related claims.

propertyenvironmenttorts & liability

This case is a trade secret misappropriation dispute in which UniRAM alleged that TSMC improperly acquired and disclosed its confidential methods for embedding DRAM memory into chips using a logic process, after UniRAM shared technical details with TSMC in 1996. TSMC moved for summary judgment on two grounds: that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that no misappropriation occurred as a matter of law. The court granted the motion only as to products made by Matsushita and denied it in all other respects. It reasoned that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether UniRAM had disclosed specific trade-secret combinations, whether TSMC had passed them to third parties, and when UniRAM knew or should have known of any misappropriation, making summary judgment inappropriate on those issues under California law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved defendants, a collection agency and employee, who sent a letter allegedly violating the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; the plaintiff initially sought class-wide relief for all recipients but amended the complaint to cover only IKEA debtors after coordinating with counsel in a parallel case to split the class. The court denied the motion for class certification, concluding that the proposed class definition made an arbitrary distinction between IKEA and non-IKEA creditors and was not superior under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The court also considered but declined to refer plaintiff's counsel to disciplinary authorities for apparent collusion aimed at maximizing fees, noting that the FDCPA's per-class damages caps create incentives for multiplying suits.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns the federal government's efforts to halt investigations by officials in Missouri, Maine, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Vermont into whether telecommunications carriers had disclosed customer telephone records to the NSA. The government moved for summary judgment, arguing that the state probes were preempted by the Supremacy Clause, the federal foreign affairs power, and the state secrets privilege. The court denied the motion without prejudice and rendered the states' cross-motions moot, holding that the Supremacy Clause and foreign affairs arguments did not bar the investigations because they did not create direct conflicts or more than incidental effects on foreign relations. The court deferred any ruling on the state secrets privilege pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in the related Hepting v. AT&T appeal.

federal powerprocedure