Francis C. Whelan

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.

labor & employment

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.

taxesprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

propertyenvironmentprocedurefederal power

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

free speechbusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

This case arose from the 1974 hijacking of a BOAC flight from Bombay to London, with passengers Krystal suing the airline under the Warsaw Convention for mental distress (including fright and anxiety) and one plaintiff also claiming physical injury due to alleged negligence. The court granted partial summary judgment by ruling that mental injuries are compensable under Article 17 of the Convention, as interpreted in light of the Montreal Agreement's passenger notice using the broader term 'personal injury' rather than 'bodily injury.' The decision rejected a strict physical-injury limitation, drawing on prior cases like Husserl to allow expansive construction of recoverable harms. However, the court denied full summary judgment on liability, causation, and whether willful misconduct lifted the $75,000 damages cap, leaving those issues for trial.

torts & liability

This case involved a former National League baseball umpire who sued the league and its president under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, alleging that his forced retirement at age 55 pursuant to the league's retirement plan was unlawful age discrimination. The defendants moved to dismiss, which the court converted to a summary judgment motion after considering affidavits showing the plan's history and application. The court granted judgment for the defendants, holding that the retirement plan—originally adopted in 1956 and later collectively bargained—was a bona fide employee benefit plan that predated the Act and was not a subterfuge to evade it. The decision rested on the statutory exception in 29 U.S.C. § 623(f) allowing observance of such plans, along with evidence that deferrals of retirement had been granted to other umpires based on performance evaluations rather than arbitrary age distinctions.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved union officers and employees challenging mandatory retirement bylaws adopted by the Retail Clerks International Association, which required retirement at age 65 or by early 1974, whichever was later, alleging age discrimination in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986. The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege the state action necessary for constitutional claims under precedents like Moose Lodge v. Irvis. It further held that the civil rights statutes did not apply to this purely private union conduct without state involvement or a showing of invidious class-based animus, and that even if they did, the uniform retirement rules were rationally related to legitimate union objectives such as leadership renewal. The pendent state claim was also dismissed without prejudice.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved the City of Los Angeles suing the United States for declaratory judgment and damages seeking municipal pilotage fees for U.S. government vessels operated by the Military Sea Transportation Service that entered, shifted within, and departed Los Angeles Harbor without using city pilots. The court granted the United States' motion for summary judgment and denied the City's motion. The core reasoning was that the Supremacy Clause preempts the city's tariff as applied to these federal public vessels engaged in national defense activities, reinforced by 46 U.S.C. § 213 which bars discriminatory pilotage charges against U.S. vessels and by the Navy's authority to use its own licensed pilots instead.

federal power

In Botsolas v. Schultz Laboratories, the plaintiff moved to hold the defendants in civil contempt for violating a 1970 consent judgment that enjoined them from infringing his patent on pipe-fitting elbow covers. The court ruled that the patent's validity was not open to challenge due to res judicata from the consent decree, and it examined only whether the defendants' updated elbow cover infringed the patent. The defendants' product, which featured added lateral extensions and score lines but was made of substantially the same resilient material and performed the same covering function when folded, was found to infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. The court held the defendants in civil contempt of the injunction, with damages to be determined later, and confirmed that all parties including a successor company were bound by the order.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved oil company lessees under federal Outer Continental Shelf leases in the Santa Barbara Channel challenging a 1971 suspension order by the Secretary of the Interior that halted all drilling operations until January 1973, issued to give Congress time to consider legislation terminating the leases or creating a national energy reserve. The court held that the Secretary lacked authority under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and its regulations to suspend operations for that purpose. The court reasoned that the Act limits suspensions to preventing waste, damage to resources or property, or injury to life, or upon lessee request, and that lease terms are fixed by statute for five years plus production periods, so the Secretary could not unilaterally extend or alter them by awaiting congressional action. Because the invalid suspension prevented timely drilling, the court ordered the suspension vacated, directed issuance of drilling permits, and equitably extended the leases by 32 months to allow completion of exploratory wells.

business & regulatoryenvironmentfederal powerproperty

In Braswell Motor Freight, Inc. v. United States, competing motor carriers challenged an order by the Interstate Commerce Commission that granted temporary authority to Hopper Truck Lines to expand its routes eastward from Arizona to Silver City, New Mexico, and to tack and interline traffic there, after initially denying the application. The plaintiffs contended that the Commission failed to adequately explain its reversal, lacked substantial evidence of an immediate and urgent need for the service, and exceeded its authority by allowing tacking and interlining. The court upheld the Commission's actions, holding that 49 U.S.C. § 310a grants the agency broad discretion to grant temporary motor carrier authority without a hearing when an urgent need exists and no other carrier can meet it, that the record supported the finding of need, and that any procedural irregularities were cured by later reconsideration. The court therefore dismissed the complaint and enforced the August 12, 1970 order.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In this bankruptcy case, the trustee for P.W.M. Aircraft Supplies, Inc. sued to recover payments made to Caine & Weiner Company, Inc. within four months before the bankruptcy filing, arguing they were preferential transfers. The court determined that Caine & Weiner was a secured creditor based on a financing statement and stipulation for judgment that together formed a valid security agreement under California law. The documents were signed by the debtor, explicitly stated they were intended as a security agreement, and described the collateral, satisfying the requirements of the Commercial Code. Therefore, the payments did not constitute an improper preference, and the trustee could not recover them.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants from using a list of shareholders of First Surety Corp. for proxy solicitations in connection with a special meeting to remove and elect directors, without affording plaintiffs certain election rights under SEC Rule 14a-7 regarding mailing materials or timing. The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction after finding that defendant Cook had properly obtained the shareholder list through state court proceedings and filed the required Schedule 14B with the SEC, and that there was no material misrepresentation in defendants' press release. The core reasoning was that Rule 14a-7 imposes obligations on the corporation only upon written request from shareholders and does not grant the corporation control over the timing of defendants' proxy mailings or prevent the use of the list obtained legally.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a criminal defense attorney held in contempt by a California superior court for refusing to disclose the names of any alibi witnesses for his client before trial in a rape and burglary prosecution, where the defendant had not yet asserted an alibi defense. The attorney petitioned for a federal writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the discovery order violated his client's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and the attorney-client privilege. The U.S. District Court granted the writ, ruling that the state court's pretrial discovery order improperly compelled disclosure and that the resulting contempt finding could not stand, as it imposed a penalty for asserting constitutional privileges; the court distinguished the case from precedents allowing limited discovery after an affirmative defense was already raised by the defendant. The decision emphasized that criminal discovery is not a symmetric two-way street when it would undermine the defendant's right to remain silent until presenting his case at trial.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

Chrysler Corporation sued Thayer Plymouth Center, Inc. and its owner for trademark infringement and unfair competition after terminating their dealership agreement, alleging unauthorized continued use of the "Plymouth" and "Valiant" trademarks. The court granted Chrysler's motion for summary judgment, finding the facts undisputed that Chrysler owned the registered trademarks and had exclusive rights to them, while Thayer was no longer an authorized dealer. The court reasoned that Thayer's ongoing use of the marks in advertising and signage would mislead the public into believing it was still an authorized dealer. As a result, the court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Thayer from holding itself out as an authorized dealer and restricting the use of the trademarks for two years, except in limited contexts for used cars.

business & regulatory

The case involved members of the singing group The Fifth Dimension suing Trans World Airlines and its advertising agency after the defendants produced and broadcast radio and television commercials that used the copyrighted music and lyrics of "Up, Up and Away" under a paid license from the copyright owner, with the performances sung by an unidentified vocalist in a style imitative of the plaintiffs' well-known recording. The plaintiffs alleged that the commercials imitated their performance without permission or attribution. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding no dispute over material facts. The core reasoning was that there had been no passing off of the commercials as the plaintiffs' products, no invasion of privacy, no defamation, and that imitation of a performance alone does not give rise to a legal cause of action under applicable precedents.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Gethers v. Blatty, the plaintiff claimed copyright infringement of his 1961 play by defendant Blatty's 1966 novel, along with related unfair trade practices, after the defendant had previously been hired to adapt the play for the screen. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no infringement as a matter of law. It determined there was no substantial similarity between the protectible elements of the works, including theme, plot, characters, settings, and expression of ideas, even though access to the play had occurred. The ruling followed from the established principle that copyright protects only the specific expression of ideas rather than the ideas themselves.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a union member who was expelled from the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 12, after publicly criticizing union officers and filing a lawsuit against them, which was reported in the press. The plaintiff had appealed the expulsion internally to the General Executive Board, which upheld it, and the court found that he had exhausted available intra-union remedies within the four-month limit set by the union constitution. The court held that the expulsion violated the plaintiff's free speech rights under Section 411(a)(2) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, as the statute protects union members' expression outside union meetings without reprisal, and the local union—not the international body—effected the expulsion. It rejected arguments that the international union was an indispensable party and that further appeals were required. The court ordered the plaintiff's restoration to membership but awarded no damages due to lack of proof.

labor & employmentfree speech