The case concerned a labor union's challenge to a regulation issued by the Secretary of Labor implementing the Redwood Employee Protection Program under the Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978. The union had previously prevailed in invalidating the regulation as inconsistent with the Act's requirement that the Secretary adopt the construction of the statute most favorable to employees. In this opinion, the court granted the union's motion for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, holding that the Secretary's position lacked substantial justification because it disregarded the statutory preference for employee-favorable interpretations and imposed undue burdens on laid-off workers. The court calculated fees based on hourly rates adjusted for expertise and contingency factors, awarding over $46,000 in fees and costs to the union's counsel.
The case involved Glenbrook Homeowners Association suing Scottsdale Insurance Company for breach of contract, bad faith, and wrongful refusal to defend and settle after being assigned rights from X-L Homes, which Scottsdale had insured. Scottsdale had declined to defend X-L in an underlying state court action over defective construction, citing a joint venture exclusion, leading to a default-like judgment against X-L that was later assigned. Scottsdale moved to dismiss the suit, arguing the underlying judgment was equivalent to an invalid stipulated judgment with a covenant not to execute. The court denied the motion, holding that the judgment resulted from an actual trial with evidence presented rather than a stipulation or sham proceeding, satisfying requirements for a valid assignment under California law.
In Pratt v. Rowland, a prisoner convicted of murder and serving a life sentence claimed that California prison officials unlawfully retaliated against him for his prior testimony about the FBI, media interviews, and civil rights litigation by transferring him to Mule Creek State Prison and requiring him to share a cell, also alleging that double-celling violated the Eighth Amendment given his medical conditions from Vietnam-era service. The court granted the plaintiff's application for a preliminary injunction, ordering defendants to return him to single-cell status at a Level III security prison. The court reasoned that prison administration is primarily the responsibility of officials but that judicial intervention is appropriate upon evidence of retaliation for First Amendment activities, and it limited relief to the least intrusive measure while declining to address the Eighth Amendment claim at this stage.
This case concerns a former employee, Peter Robinson, who resigned from Jardine Insurance Brokers International Ltd. and joined a competitor, prompting the company to obtain an ex parte English court order restricting him from soliciting colleagues or clients. Robinson filed suit in US district court seeking to block enforcement of the English order within the United States, arguing no enforceable non-compete agreement existed and that California law prohibits such restrictions. The court addressed Robinson's application for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the foreign order. It concluded that no valid contract imposed post-employment limits, California law renders such restraints void, and comity considerations did not require deference to the English ruling in the US. Accordingly, the court prohibited enforcement of the English order in the United States.
The case involved shareholders who purchased Xoma common stock suing the company and its chairman, alleging violations of federal securities laws (Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5) as well as state law claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs claimed that defendants' optimistic statements about the imminent FDA approval of the drug E5 were misleading, artificially inflating the stock price until the FDA's refusal to approve caused a sharp drop. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the federal securities claims under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the statements were general expressions of optimism unaccompanied by false assertions or specific predictions about timing, that defendants had repeatedly disclaimed any ability to forecast FDA actions, and that defendants had not adopted any third-party analyst statements. The court also addressed the state law claims in light of recent precedent but dismissed the federal claims as the core ruling.
The case concerned whether Save Mart Supermarkets was entitled to coverage under an insurance policy issued by the London Defendants for defense costs and liability in the Herring class action, which alleged sex, race, and later retaliation, age, and harassment discrimination by Save Mart and related companies against employees at Fry’s stores and other locations. The London Defendants moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds, including an employee-injury exclusion, the bar on coverage for intentional acts under the policy and California Insurance Code §533, that the alleged pattern of discrimination was a single occurrence predating the policy, prior knowledge of claims, and inapplicability of faithful performance coverage; Save Mart opposed and cross-moved for a ruling that the insurers had a duty to defend. The court applied California law on policy interpretation and summary judgment standards, explained that an insurer must defend suits potentially seeking covered damages unless a contrary intent is clearly stated, and analyzed whether the duty to defend could be negated by the cited exclusions while addressing issues such as whether the discrimination claims involved intentional misconduct or a single occurrence.