The case involved a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by a 58-year-old plaintiff who alleged he was denied the position of Executive Director at the Orange County Center for the Performing Arts due to his age. The defendants moved for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the Center did not employ the minimum of twenty employees required for the ADEA to apply in the relevant years. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants after allowing limited discovery, holding that the organization's unpaid trustees, directors, and volunteers did not qualify as employees under the Act because they received no compensation, performed board-like functions rather than traditional employee duties, lacked an employer-employee relationship, and did not meet the statutory twenty-week threshold.
In Allen v. United States, the plaintiff, a former member of the Armed Services, sought to recover alleged overpayments of federal income taxes withheld from his salary in 1970-1972 after failing to file returns for those years; the IRS denied his 1976 refund claims as untimely. The court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, holding that under 26 U.S.C. § 6511(a) and (b)(2)(A), claims must be filed within three years of the return or two years of payment, and even treating the 1976 filings as returns, the plaintiff could only recover taxes paid in the preceding three years—which did not include the relevant period. The Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act did not toll the limitations period for internal revenue claims, and the IRS letter denying the claims did not waive the defense or estop the government from asserting it.
This case involves former Mattel directors challenging a consent decree entered in an SEC enforcement action against the company, which required appointment of independent directors, a Special Counsel, and a Special Auditor to investigate securities law violations and correct filings. The plaintiffs sought to expunge the resulting reports from court records and enjoin their use, arguing that portions of the decree were invalid and unconstitutional. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, denied the plaintiffs' motions for injunctive relief and expungement, and ordered the reports sealed rather than expunged. It reasoned that the action was premature absent any indictment, that certain plaintiffs were estopped due to their prior consent to the decree, and that the SEC could lawfully obtain evidence through such investigations without violating constitutional rights. The reports were sealed pending further court order.
This case involved a mining company's appeal from an Interior Board of Land Appeals decision that invalidated its 18 unpatented placer mining claims in the San Bernardino National Forest. The claims were challenged after the Forest Service granted a highway easement to California and special use permits for pipelines, with contestants alleging no discovery of valuable minerals. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the Board's ruling was supported by substantial evidence under the prudent man and marketability tests, as tests showed no valuable deposits meeting commercial standards as of the 1955 Surface Resources Act. The court also rejected claims of procedural errors, finding that the United States' intervention was proper, notice was adequate, and the plaintiff received a full hearing without any due process violation.
This case involved Rockland Institute, a California business school, and associated individuals suing the Association of Independent Colleges and Schools after it withdrew accreditation based on deficiencies in financial resources, student aid administration, transcripts, admissions policies, and catalog content. The plaintiffs claimed the Association failed to follow its procedures, applied its rules improperly, and that Rockland had remedied issues or could qualify for federal funding through alternative means under 20 U.S.C. § 1085(b)(5). The court granted summary judgment for the Association, ruling that judicial review of accreditation decisions is limited to determining whether actions were arbitrary or unreasonable, supported by substantial evidence, and tied to legitimate purposes, and finding that the Association had followed its hearing and remediation procedures with ample record evidence of ongoing deficiencies such as financial mismanagement.
The case concerned consolidated challenges by consumer organizations and individuals needing prescription eyeglasses to California Business and Professions Code sections 651.3, 2556, and 3129, along with related regulations, which banned advertising of prices, stipulated payments, or free services for lenses, frames, and optometric care. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the restrictions deprived them of factual price-comparison information in violation of First Amendment protections. The court denied the motion for a temporary injunction, holding that the prohibited speech constituted purely commercial advertising of commercial activity within the state and thus fell outside First Amendment coverage under precedents such as Bigelow v. Virginia and Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations. The panel also rejected abstention and a motion to dismiss, while reserving questions of standing.
