Stanley Alexander Weigel

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.

labor & employmentenvironmentprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

civil rightsfree speechcriminal law

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.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

labor & employmentcivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

In United States v. Cheng, the government sued to recover NRSA grant funds plus interest from defendant John Stuart Cheng, who had received $12,840 for biomedical research training but allegedly failed to complete his required 24 months of service in health-related research or teaching. Cheng claimed his work as an elementary school teacher satisfied the obligation and counterclaimed for tax refunds withheld by the IRS. The court granted summary judgment to the United States and denied the counterclaim. It held that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has statutory discretion to determine qualifying service, and the agency's rejection of Cheng's teaching as insufficiently health-related was neither arbitrary nor capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The IRS offsets under 31 U.S.C. § 3720 and 26 U.S.C. § 6402(d) were therefore lawful.

federal powertaxeshealthcareprocedure

The case involved former Procter & Gamble executive Neil DeFeo, who resigned to join rival Clorox and sought a declaratory judgment in California state court that non-compete provisions tied to his stock options were unenforceable as against public policy; Procter & Gamble responded with its own injunction action in Ohio state court and removed the California case to federal district court. The court addressed Procter & Gamble's motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, transfer the case to Ohio, or stay/dismiss in light of the parallel Ohio proceeding. Applying the Brillhart doctrine under the Declaratory Judgment Act, the court held that it should decline jurisdiction over the declaratory relief claim because the identical state-law issues were already pending in a state court action between the same parties, which presumption is supported by the interests of avoiding needless state-law decisions, discouraging forum shopping, and preventing duplicative litigation; the action was therefore dismissed.

business & regulatorylabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a trustee of pension plans suing the plan's administrator, accountant, and attorneys in state court for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging they failed to advise on and protect against penalties from an overfunded pension plan after 1985 tax law changes. The defendants removed the case to federal court, claiming that ERISA preempted the state law claims and provided exclusive federal jurisdiction. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court, reasoning that ERISA did not completely preempt the claims because the defendants were not acting as ERISA fiduciaries and the claims were not redressable under ERISA's civil enforcement provisions. The court denied the request for attorney's fees and found the motion to dismiss moot due to lack of jurisdiction.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

The case concerns the State of California's effort to recover over $1.6 million in CERCLA response costs from Castle & Cooke, a can manufacturer whose solder dross byproduct (containing lead and zinc) was sold to a metal reclamation facility, leaked from corroded drums, and contaminated the site. The court initially granted summary judgment for the defendant, holding that CERCLA disposal or treatment liability under § 107(a)(3) required the material to qualify as hazardous waste under the Solid Waste Disposal Act. On reconsideration, the court found that CERCLA liability attaches independently of SWDA hazardous-waste status, that the sale of the manufacturing byproduct constituted an arrangement for treatment or disposal, and that the defendant was therefore liable for the cleanup costs.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Dr. John Doe, who alleged he accepted a physicist position at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 1991 with a set salary and security clearance requirement, only for defendants to withdraw the offer after concluding he could not obtain the clearance. Doe filed claims for breach of employment contract and a violation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had previously dismissed the § 1983 claim against one defendant in his official capacity. On the motions before it, the court granted Doe leave to amend his complaint to seek prospective injunctive relief that could apply to future employment applicants, potentially allowing the § 1983 claim to proceed against the official-capacity defendant, while denying without prejudice the motion to reconsider the prior dismissal because any new complaint had not yet been filed.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a Salvadoran citizen who entered the US without inspection and applied for political asylum and employment authorization with the INS. The INS denied her request for work authorization on the ground that her asylum application was frivolous because it failed to allege any statutory basis for persecution. She sued in federal district court seeking a preliminary injunction to compel issuance of the employment authorization documents. The court granted the injunction and denied the government's motion to dismiss, holding that her application was non-frivolous under the relevant regulations because it alleged past persecution on account of political opinion and that denial of work authorization would cause her irreparable injury.

immigration

The case concerned sureties who posted their family home as security for a $100,000 property bond to release defendant Jesus Aguilar after his indictment on heroin conspiracy and possession charges. After Aguilar pled guilty but failed to appear for sentencing, the court ordered bond forfeiture; the sureties then moved to set it aside, claiming the government had allowed Aguilar to travel outside the Northern District of California to assist in drug investigations without their knowledge, materially increasing their risk. The court granted the motion and remitted the forfeiture, reasoning that the government's unilateral changes to the bond terms without notice or consent increased the sureties' risk of nonappearance, and that equitable factors under Fed. R. Crim. P. 46(e)(2) also favored setting aside the forfeiture given the sureties' lack of involvement in the breach.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a Bahamian corporation suing a Malaysian bank and its officers under federal RICO statutes along with pendent fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims, alleging a conspiracy to sell U.S. assets of a Hong Kong company at an undervalue to harm minority shareholders. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds after determining that Hong Kong was an adequate alternative forum because the bank conducted business there, the individual defendants consented to jurisdiction, and Hong Kong law provided remedies for deceit, conspiracy, and damages. Balancing private interest factors such as witness access and evidence location against public interest factors including Hong Kong's stronger connection to the parties, governing law, and local concerns, the court concluded that dismissal was warranted, while denying the standing motion as moot.

procedurebusiness & regulatorycriminal law

This case involved a California partnership suing a Delaware corporation and its Wisconsin parent company for breach of a commercial lease after a fire destroyed the leased premises in San Francisco. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, contending that the subsidiary remained a California citizen based on its last principal place of business. The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding no complete diversity because an inactive or winding-down corporation is a citizen of both its state of incorporation and its final principal place of business. The core reasoning relied on the statutory text requiring both elements of corporate citizenship, legislative history aimed at preventing local entities from accessing federal courts, and the absence of evidence that parent company control had altered the subsidiary's principal place of business.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a former employee of the Round Valley Indian Health Center suing the center, its director, and others for alleged physical and sexual assault, retaliatory termination, and eviction after she rejected the director's advances, asserting both common-law tort claims and statutory claims under the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The court granted Round Valley's motion to substitute the United States as defendant on the two statutory claims pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act, reasoning that FTCA's coverage of "negligent or wrongful acts or omissions" encompasses both intentional and statutory torts based on Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedents interpreting the statute. It then granted dismissal of those statutory claims without prejudice because the plaintiff had not first exhausted administrative remedies as required by the FTCA, which divests the court of jurisdiction. The court denied as moot the United States' motion regarding a cross-claim.

civil rightsfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

The case arose after federal agents searching a suspected drug trafficker's home entered and detained a tenant in a separate downstairs apartment for about 45 minutes before releasing her. The tenant sued individual federal agents under Bivens for violating her Fourth Amendment rights and prevailed at trial, obtaining a damages judgment against two agents; she then moved for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court denied the motion, holding that EAJA authorizes fee awards only in actions brought against the United States or its officials acting in their official capacities. Because a Bivens claim proceeds against defendants solely in their personal capacities and the United States cannot be held liable on the merits, the statute does not apply.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff who invested in a restaurant franchisor and related partnership and later sued multiple defendants, including individuals and a law firm, alleging securities fraud, failure to register securities, RICO violations, state law claims, and other causes of action based on misrepresentations about profitability and omissions of material facts. The court addressed motions to dismiss from two groups of defendants, primarily on grounds of insufficient particularity in pleading fraud under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), lack of standing, and failure to state claims. It dismissed the majority of counts without prejudice for lack of particularity in the fraud allegations, dismissed certain counts with prejudice for legal deficiencies such as improper parties or failure to state a claim, and granted the plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a union representing Federal Bureau of Prisons employees challenging a proposed drug-testing program as an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiffs had obtained a preliminary injunction limiting testing to instances of reasonable suspicion that drug use impaired job performance, and the government renewed its motion for summary judgment after modifying the program and citing intervening Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit decisions. The court applied a balancing test weighing governmental interests in safety, security, and deterrence against employee privacy interests, noting that urinalysis does not detect current impairment and that evidence of a drug problem among employees was limited, while evaluating specific components such as random testing of designated positions, post-accident testing, and reasonable-suspicion testing.

civil rightslabor & employmentfederal power

The case involved a Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtor whose exempt homestead funds were placed in trust for potential 1988 tax liabilities and later levied upon by the IRS for $33,545.40, even though the estate ultimately had sufficient assets to pay the taxes. The debtor sought to substitute herself for the IRS as a priority creditor and obtain determinations that the estate remained liable for the taxes while she was not personally liable, aiming for reimbursement. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's disallowance of the IRS claim, modified the summary judgment to hold the estate liable under 11 U.S.C. § 505(a) and the debtor not liable, ordered the trustee to pay the IRS, and directed the IRS to return the levied amount to the debtor and her ex-husband. The core reasoning was that equitable principles in bankruptcy require using estate funds for pre-existing tax claims when available, a paid claim objection does not bar allowance here, and the IRS levy was wrongful given the estate's solvency.

taxesprocedurefederal power