James Ware

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.

free speechcivil rights

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.

labor & employmentfederal power

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

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.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a putative class action in which plaintiffs alleged that Facebook transmitted users' personal information, including user IDs and browsing details via referrer headers, to third-party advertisers without consent, violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Stored Communications Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and other state laws as well as breach of contract. The court granted in part and denied in part Facebook's motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). It dismissed the Stored Communications Act claim because Facebook was the intended recipient of the communications and thus could not be liable for disclosure, dismissed the UCL claim for failure to allege cognizable injury or loss of property, and dismissed certain Penal Code claims for lack of factual allegations, while permitting other claims to proceed based on the sufficiency of the pleadings under applicable standards.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedure

In this case, Multiven and its CEO Adekeye (a former Cisco employee) sued Cisco alleging monopolization under the Sherman Act, while Cisco counterclaimed for violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California Penal Code section 502, and the Unfair Competition Law based on Adekeye's repeated unauthorized access to Cisco's systems using another employee's password to download proprietary software. The court granted Cisco's motion for partial summary judgment on the CFAA claim and denied Multiven's cross-motion. It reasoned that the undisputed facts established multiple instances of access without authorization, creating no genuine issue for trial and entitling Cisco to judgment as a matter of law on liability.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff suing a law firm for alleged violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and invasion of privacy, based on the firm's efforts to collect $1869 pursuant to a state court writ of execution renewing an earlier judgment. The defendant moved for summary judgment, which the court treated as a motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, holding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the claims amounted to a de facto appeal challenging the validity of the state court's judgment and writ. The court noted that such review of state court decisions is reserved for the U.S. Supreme Court, and the related state-law claims were likewise barred.

procedurefederal power

This ERISA case involved plaintiff Day's challenge to the offset of his long-term disability benefits under the AT&T Disability Income Plan by amounts from his pension benefits, after the claims administrator Sedgwick initially awarded LTD but applied the offset. The court reviewed the administrator's decision for abuse of discretion, as the plan granted discretionary authority to interpret its terms. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's, finding the plan's interpretation allowing the offset to be reasonable and consistent with the plain language of the plan document. The decision was based on the deferential standard of review, under which the administrator's determination could not be disturbed if reasonable, with no basis for applying a less deferential standard or finding serial misinterpretations.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case is a consolidated class action in which plaintiffs alleged that defendants, including a private company operating a county bad check restitution program, violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and state constitutional privacy rights by sending demand letters on district attorney letterhead and collecting fees and restitution from individuals who wrote dishonored checks. The court addressed the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment on the remaining claims after earlier dismissals of due process and Section 1983 causes of action. Applying the summary judgment standard under Rule 56 and viewing facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, finding no triable issues on certain FDCPA violations such as unauthorized practice of law and improper communications but identifying factual disputes regarding whether particular defendants qualified as debt collectors and participated materially in the collection activities. The certified classes included an umbrella class of recipients of demand letters and subclasses based on the type of check and remedies sought.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Plaintiff Kathleen Campbell sued The Walt Disney Company and related entities, claiming that their animated film "Cars" infringed her copyrighted screenplay "The Challenge," along with related claims for unjust enrichment and constructive trust. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the entire action with prejudice. It reasoned that, even assuming copyright ownership and access to the screenplay, the works were not substantially similar in any protectable expression, as the alleged overlaps involved only unprotectable ideas, basic plot premises, scenes a faire, stock themes, and common elements under the Ninth Circuit's extrinsic and intrinsic tests for copyright infringement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved environmental groups suing the U.S. Department of the Interior and Fish and Wildlife Service under the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that the agencies unlawfully failed to determine whether a long-running program translocating California sea otters to San Nicolas Island had failed, as required by a 1987 regulation that also established an otter-free management zone. The court granted a motion by the California Sea Urchin Commission and related parties to intervene and denied the federal defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court reasoned that the regulation created a mandatory, non-discretionary duty for the agency to evaluate and decide on program failure based on specified criteria, making the inaction reviewable under the APA's provision for compelled agency action. It rejected arguments that the duty was too vague or discretionary, noting public statements and regulatory language indicating an obligation to act after nearly 24 years without a final determination.

environmentprocedurefederal power

The case concerns Defendant St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's December 16, 2008 order, which had granted partial summary judgment to Plaintiff Infor Global Solutions on the issue of Defendant's duty to defend in an underlying trade libel action. Defendant argued that the January 2010 California Court of Appeals decision in Total Call Int'l, Inc. v. Peerless Ins. Co. represented a material change in law that eliminated any duty to defend. The court denied the motion, finding that Total Call applied the same California Supreme Court precedent regarding the "of and concerning" requirement for covered disparagement claims and the nonconformity exclusion, but reached a different outcome only because the underlying allegations in that case lacked any implication of specific competitor disparagement, unlike the facts here. The court therefore concluded that the new decision did not warrant reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b).

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved plaintiffs who sued Perrigo Pharmaceuticals, a generic drug maker, under California state tort law for failure to adequately warn about risks associated with its over-the-counter 200 mg ibuprofen product. The court had previously granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that the plaintiffs' failure-to-warn claims were preempted by FDA regulations because generic manufacturers must match the brand-name label and cannot unilaterally strengthen warnings. Plaintiffs sought reconsideration after the Supreme Court's decision in Wyeth v. Levine, which rejected impossibility and obstacle preemption arguments for brand-name drug makers. The court denied the motion, reasoning that Levine addressed only brand-name drugs and did not resolve whether generic manufacturers can use the FDA's changes-being-effected process to alter labels without prior approval, leaving the original impossibility preemption finding intact.

federal powerhealthcaretorts & liability

In Swain v. CACH, LLC, the plaintiff sued debt collection defendants under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and for unjust enrichment, alleging improper attempts to collect an invalid debt that forced her to pay a court filing fee. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissing the FDCPA claim against some defendants with leave to amend due to insufficient factual allegations that they qualified as debt collectors, and dismissing the UCL and unjust enrichment claims with prejudice for lack of standing and because unjust enrichment is not an independent cause of action. The court denied a motion to stay the proceedings pending another case. The reasoning centered on federal pleading standards requiring plausible factual content and the requirements for UCL standing involving a vested interest in lost money or property.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a securities class action brought by investors against Lisa C. Berry, a former executive at Juniper Networks, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 based on the backdating of stock options and related misstatements in SEC filings and proxy statements. The court considered the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint and motion to strike, applying standards for pleading primary liability under Rule 10b-5 that require either signing a misleading document or substantial participation in its preparation. The court granted the motion to dismiss in part, finding that claims based on misrepresentations before July 11, 2003, were time-barred, but denied it in part as to later filings where additional allegations sufficiently showed the defendant's signing or intricate involvement. The court denied the motion to strike, and the case proceeds on the surviving claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves Juanita Swain suing CACH, LLC, its law firm, and related individuals for alleged violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California's Unfair Competition Law, claiming defendants misrepresented a car loan deficiency balance as a credit card debt and filed false declarations in state court collection proceedings. The U.S. District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing the UCL claim for lack of standing because plaintiff did not allege loss of money or property, but allowing the FDCPA claim to proceed. The court denied the motion to strike and found the FDCPA claim was not a compulsory counterclaim in the prior state action. Core reasoning relied on Twombly pleading standards, UCL standing precedents requiring economic loss, and case law distinguishing debt collection suits from FDCPA enforcement actions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Maxim Integrated Products sued Richard Quintana and My-iButton LLC for trademark infringement and false advertising under the Lanham Act, claiming that defendants' use of the 'My-iButton' mark for a portable MP4 device created a likelihood of consumer confusion with Maxim's incontestable 'iButton' marks for data-recording computer chips. The court granted Maxim's motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining defendants from using the mark and requiring a $40,000 bond. The decision rested on Maxim's likelihood of success on the merits due to the similarity of the marks and evidence of actual confusion, the risk of irreparable harm from continued infringement, the balance of equities favoring Maxim, and the public interest in preventing consumer deception. The court applied the four-factor test from Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council without presuming irreparable harm from success on the merits alone.

business & regulatory

This case involved a homeowner suing mortgage lenders and related companies for wrongful foreclosure and unfair business practices, claiming inadequate disclosures at loan signing and improper foreclosure notices under California law, as well as federal Truth in Lending Act violations. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint but allowed the plaintiff to amend it. The decision was based on findings that the federal claims were barred by the statute of limitations, the allegations failed to state valid claims for wrongful foreclosure because MERS could act as beneficiary, and other claims were insufficiently pleaded or duplicative.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure