The case involved three public high school students who wore American flag shirts to school on Cinco de Mayo and were instructed by administrators either to turn the shirts inside out or leave for the day, after which they brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights as well as parallel rights under the California Constitution. The court granted the school district’s motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the students’ cross-motion. The core reasoning was that school officials reasonably forecast substantial disruption or safety concerns arising from the clothing in light of prior campus incidents, that the restrictions were viewpoint-neutral and narrowly tailored to the school’s pedagogical interests under Tinker and its progeny, and that the dress-code language was not unconstitutionally vague.
Maurice Larimer sued his former employer Konocti Vista Casino Resort, Marina & RV Park and its CEO Anthony Jack, alleging they misclassified him as exempt from overtime, failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, kept inaccurate records, and breached his employment contract. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on grounds of tribal sovereign immunity. The court granted the motion, holding that Konocti Vista is wholly owned and operated by a federally recognized Indian tribe and functions as an arm of the tribe, that no congressional authorization or express waiver permitted the FLSA suit, and that the claims against Jack arose from actions taken within the scope of his official tribal duties. The court therefore lacked jurisdiction over both defendants.
Nina Fu sued her former employer, Walker Parking Consultants, alleging pregnancy discrimination and related claims under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (PDLL) after being laid off while on maternity leave. The court addressed the defendant's motion for summary judgment on nine causes of action, including discrimination, failure to accommodate or reinstate, retaliation, and wrongful termination. The court granted summary judgment on most claims, finding no evidence that the employer's stated economic reasons for the layoff were pretextual or that the decision was motivated by pregnancy. However, it denied summary judgment on the PDLL claim regarding denial of leave or reinstatement rights, as well as on the request for punitive damages, because genuine issues of material fact remained. The rulings on dependent claims such as failure to prevent discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress followed from the disposition of the underlying discrimination allegations.
This case is a putative class action in which plaintiffs alleged that Google intentionally used packet-sniffing software on its Street View vehicles to intercept and store payload data, including personal emails, usernames, and passwords, from unsecured home Wi-Fi networks. Plaintiffs asserted claims under the federal Wiretap Act, California's unfair competition law, and various state wiretap statutes. The court granted in part and denied in part Google's motion to dismiss. It permitted the federal Wiretap Act claim to proceed on the ground that the collected data qualified as electronic communications not readily accessible to the general public, but dismissed the state wiretap claims with prejudice on preemption grounds and the UCL claim with leave to amend for insufficient allegations of injury.
This case involved same-sex couples challenging California's Proposition 8, a state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, on federal constitutional grounds. After a bench trial, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled for the plaintiffs and enjoined enforcement of the provision. Following Walker's retirement, defendant-intervenors moved to vacate the judgment, arguing that his status as a gay man in a same-sex relationship created a disqualifying personal interest or appearance of partiality under 28 U.S.C. § 455. The court denied the motion, holding that a judge's shared personal characteristics or potential impact from a ruling, when no different from that on the general public, does not require recusal or disqualification.
This case is a class action by consumers against Apple alleging violations of the Sherman Act and related state laws, claiming that Apple used software updates to its iTunes and FairPlay system to block interoperability with competing music services like RealNetworks' Harmony, in order to maintain monopoly power in digital music and portable player markets. The court addressed Apple's motion for summary judgment on the monopolization and attempted monopolization claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, along with state law equivalents, and plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The court granted in part and denied in part the summary judgment motion, finding that some evidence of Apple's design changes could support claims of exclusionary conduct while other evidence was insufficient or irrelevant, and it denied class certification as premature. The decision turned on whether the updates were procompetitive improvements or anticompetitive acts leveraging monopoly power.