In Roberts v. C.R. England, Inc., plaintiffs Charles Roberts and Kenneth McKay brought a putative class action alleging that defendants fraudulently induced them to purchase a 'Driving Opportunity' through contracts to lease trucks and operate as independent contractors, asserting claims under California, Utah, Indiana, and federal law including the California Franchise Investment Law (CFIL). Defendants moved to dismiss the CFIL claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and to dismiss or transfer the case based on forum selection clauses designating Utah, or alternatively for convenience under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court granted the motion to dismiss the CFIL claim with leave to amend, finding the allegations insufficient, and deferred ruling on the transfer motion, stating that a viable CFIL claim would lead to denial of transfer while failure to state one would warrant transfer under §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a) after weighing private and public interest factors favoring Utah.
This case involves a resident of a skilled nursing facility bringing claims against healthcare management entities and the facility operator under California Health and Safety Code section 1430(b), the Unfair Competition Law, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act for alleged violations related to services provided. The court granted the motions to dismiss or strike the newly added plaintiffs and defendants because the prior order had not authorized amendments to add parties. It also granted dismissal of claims against the parent entities for failure to plead alter ego liability with sufficient facts, and partially granted dismissal of the CLRA claim against the facility defendant while denying the personal jurisdiction motion as moot. The core reasoning relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 limits on amendments without leave and the absence of factual support for extending liability beyond the licensed facility operator.
This case involves claims by Vietnam Veterans of America and other plaintiffs against the CIA stemming from U.S. human experimentation programs conducted at Edgewood Arsenal and Fort Detrick, including allegations that participants were required to sign secrecy oaths limiting disclosure of program details. The CIA moved for judgment on the pleadings, to amend the scheduling order, and for a protective order regarding discovery. The court denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings and the motion to amend without prejudice, while granting the protective order in part. It ruled that plaintiffs' constitutional claims based on the secrecy oaths may proceed, but previously dismissed claims for notice of exposures and health care against the CIA remain out unless revived through supplemental briefing, and no discovery is permitted on those dismissed claims. The decision rests on prior rulings dismissing the notice and health care claims and the current scope of asserted causes of action.
The case involved a debtor who filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, received a discharge, and then filed a Chapter 13 petition less than a year later primarily to strip a wholly unsecured second lien on her residence that could not be avoided under Dewsnup in the prior Chapter 7 case. The debtor's Chapter 13 plan proposed no payments to unsecured creditors and offered no other apparent purpose beyond the lien strip. The bankruptcy court dismissed the case for bad faith under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c), and the district court affirmed, holding that the filing constituted an improper attempt to manipulate the Bankruptcy Code by combining benefits of both chapters without repaying creditors.
The case involved a petition by the NLRB's regional director under Section 10(j) of the NLRA seeking a preliminary injunction against American Baptist Homes of the West, operator of a senior living facility. The petition alleged that the employer committed unfair labor practices by ejecting union members during a strike authorization vote, permanently replacing striking employees despite their unconditional offer to return to work, and doing so with anti-union motivation rather than legitimate operational needs. The court granted the petition and ordered interim reinstatement of specified employees pending the outcome of administrative proceedings before the NLRB. It reasoned that the NLRB had shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims under NLRA Sections 8(a)(1), (3), and (5), along with irreparable harm to employees' collective bargaining rights that outweighed any hardship to the employer. The injunction was stayed briefly to allow for possible appellate review.
Safeway sued the City and County of San Francisco over an ordinance (as amended) that bars any store containing a pharmacy from selling tobacco products, after the city removed prior exemptions for grocery and big-box stores following a related state-court ruling. The complaint alleged violations of equal protection and due process under the California Constitution, along with state-law preemption. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, reasoning that the classification between stores with and without pharmacies was rationally related to the city’s goal of limiting tobacco sales, that Safeway was not deprived of a protected property interest without due process, and that the ordinance regulates retail tobacco distribution rather than the pharmacy profession and thus is not preempted.
