In Aguayo v. U.S. Bank, plaintiff Jose Aguayo sued the national bank after it repossessed his vehicle and sent a notice of sale that allegedly failed to meet the post-repossession disclosure requirements of California's Rees-Levering Automobile Sales Finance Act; he pursued the claim under the state's Unfair Competition Law. U.S. Bank moved to dismiss, arguing federal preemption. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the National Bank Act and OCC regulation 12 C.F.R. § 7.4008(d) preempt state laws imposing disclosure requirements on national banks' lending activities, including repossession notices, because they impermissibly interfere with federally authorized powers. The court further ruled that preemption applies equally to loans originated by dealers and later assigned to the bank. The motion to strike was denied as moot.
This case is a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Richard Gonzalez Samayoa challenging his 1988 California state convictions for two counts of first-degree murder with special circumstances and burglary, for which he received a death sentence. The petitioner sought an evidentiary hearing on multiple claims and summary judgment on some of them, asserting issues including ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, trial errors, and constitutional violations. The district court denied the motions for evidentiary hearing and summary judgment on the specified claims and denied the entire habeas petition, finding that the claims lacked merit under applicable legal standards and did not require further factual development. The ruling rested on review of the state court record, procedural history, and determination that the state court's prior denials were consistent with federal requirements.
This case concerns an appeal from a bankruptcy court's order in a Chapter 11 proceeding involving North Plaza, LLC, where the trustee sought documents and testimony from a real estate broker (Lei) and his company regarding communications with the appellants' (Dynamic Finance and Sabella) legal counsel during loan negotiations secured by the debtor's property. Appellants claimed the documents were protected by attorney-client privilege because Lei acted as a client representative, but after an evidentiary hearing the bankruptcy court rejected the privilege and compelled production. Appellants appealed the order and moved the district court for a stay pending appeal. The district court denied the stay, concluding that appellants had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits under federal common law governing the privilege, that the balance of harms and public interest favored proceeding with the broad discovery allowed under Bankruptcy Rule 2004, and that the bankruptcy court's ruling was not clearly erroneous.
The case involved a petition by Unite Here, a labor union, to confirm an arbitration award against the Pala Band of Mission Indians regarding alleged unfair labor practices by the tribe's casino under the Model Tribal Labor Relations Ordinance (TLRO), which was adopted to satisfy conditions in the tribe's Gaming Compact with California pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The tribe moved to dismiss the petition. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It reasoned that the underlying dispute arose under the TLRO rather than federal law, so there was no federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the parties' consent or limited waivers could not independently confer jurisdiction on the federal court.
This case involves healthcare providers challenging the Secretary of Health and Human Services' implementation of a Medicare Part B competitive bidding demonstration project for clinical laboratory tests, specifically rules regarding bid submissions and exceptions for face-to-face providers. The court determined that it has jurisdiction over the claims and that the plaintiffs have standing, despite not exhausting administrative remedies. The reasoning is that requiring administrative exhaustion would result in no review at all because losing bidders cannot submit claims or appeal under the statute, and the plaintiffs suffered concrete injuries from the bidding requirements. Judicial review is not barred for challenges to the face-to-face exception rule.
The case concerns allegations by the People of the State of California and the City of San Diego that Kinder Morgan's petroleum storage and distribution facility has leaked contaminants onto adjacent city-owned land and groundwater beneath Qualcomm Stadium, violating the City's Pueblo water rights and creating ongoing pollution since before 1992 despite state cleanup orders. Plaintiffs brought claims for nuisance, trespass, negligence, unfair business practices, health and safety violations, and declaratory relief. The district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and motion to strike the prayer for attorneys' fees and punitive damages, applying the Twombly plausibility standard, construing allegations in plaintiffs' favor, and evaluating the sufficiency of each claim along with the availability of requested remedies.
