The case involved major movie studios suing WTV Systems and its operator over the Zediva service, which rented access to copyrighted films by streaming them over the internet from physical DVDs played on the company's servers. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. It found a likelihood of success on the copyright infringement claim because Zediva publicly performed the works by transmitting them to multiple users under the Copyright Act's transmit clause, distinguishing the service from private or licensed performances and from the studios' authorized distribution windows. The court also determined that the plaintiffs showed a likelihood of irreparable harm from interference with their licensing arrangements and that the balance of equities and public interest supported injunctive relief.
This case involved a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Samuel Millan under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 2005 decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings denying him parole after his 1986 guilty plea to second-degree murder and sentence of 16 years to life. Millan had pursued habeas petitions in California state courts, but the California Supreme Court denied his petition with a citation to People v. Duvall, indicating the claims lacked sufficient factual particularity. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the respondent's motion to dismiss the petition without prejudice on the ground that Millan had failed to exhaust his state court remedies by not refiling an amended petition with adequate detail. The court also denied a certificate of appealability, finding no substantial showing of a constitutional violation or procedural error.
This case involved a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed by licensed attorney Eric Jacobson against California state officials, including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, challenging aspects of the state's parole revocation system on behalf of parolees and asserting that Jacobson himself was removed from the attorney appointment list in retaliation for his representation of parolees and criticisms of parole officials. After multiple amendments and partial dismissals, the remaining claims by Jacobson concerned alleged retaliatory termination (Claim Twelve) and related state law claims (Claims Thirteen and Eighteen). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment while denying Jacobson's, resulting in dismissal of Claim Twelve with prejudice and the other two claims without prejudice. The core reasoning was that Jacobson failed to produce evidence creating a triable issue of fact showing that any defendant was personally involved in the termination decision or acted with a retaliatory motive based on protected speech or conduct.
In Champion v. Murphy, a state prisoner proceeding pro se sued a prison dentist under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the dentist provided inadequate dental care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, retaliated against the prisoner for filing grievances in violation of the First Amendment, and discriminated against him on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in part, ruling in the defendant's favor on the deliberate indifference and race discrimination claims while denying the prisoner's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found no genuine issue of material fact on those claims because the evidence showed the dentist had provided treatment without the required culpable state of mind and there was no proof of discriminatory intent or disparate treatment based on race. The retaliation claim remained unresolved because the defendant had not addressed it in the motion. The court ordered the parties to file new summary judgment motions on the retaliation claim within thirty days.
In Tirado v. Warden, a California state prisoner filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his convictions for two counts of spousal rape, arguing that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of reasonable but mistaken belief in consent. The district court, adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after de novo review, dismissed the petition with prejudice. The core reasoning was that AEDPA limits review to whether the state court's decision was unreasonable, and the record lacked substantial evidence of equivocal conduct supporting a good-faith mistaken belief in consent, particularly where the victim's resistance was overcome by force; thus, no jury instruction was required under state law as interpreted in People v. Williams and People v. Mayberry.
This case was an ERISA action brought by plaintiff Cari Garrison against Aetna Life Insurance Company and Boeing's employee health and welfare benefit plan challenging the cancellation of her long-term disability benefits after she stopped working due to back surgery for degenerative disc disease. The court held a bench trial to review Aetna's decision under the plan, which defined total disability for the initial 30-month period as the inability, due to injury or disease, to perform the material duties of the plaintiff's own occupation as it exists in the general economy. After considering the evidence of the plaintiff's medical history, job demands as Director of Supplier Management, initial approval of short-term and long-term disability benefits, and the plan's terms, the court issued detailed findings of fact on the onset of disability, occupational classification, and relevant policy provisions to determine eligibility.
