Claudia Ann Wilken

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.

business & regulatoryprocedurelabor & employment

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.

healthcareprocedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

civil rightsfederal powerhealthcareprocedure

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.

propertyprocedure

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.

labor & employment

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.

business & regulatorycivil rightshealthcare

The case involved a plaintiff who sued Prudential Insurance in state court for wrongfully denying long-term disability benefits under his policy, along with related claims for breach of contract, bad faith, misrepresentation, and emotional distress, and who also sought a writ of mandate against the California Insurance Commissioner to review and reform the policy's definition of total disability. Prudential removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds, asserting that the Commissioner was a sham defendant whose citizenship could be disregarded. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, reasoning that the Commissioner was a proper non-citizen party whose inclusion destroyed complete diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and it denied attorneys' fees because the removal had an objectively reasonable basis.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerns a resident of a skilled nursing facility who sued the facility operator, related entities, and parent companies under California law, alleging that insufficient nursing staff levels caused her harm and that the companies failed to disclose noncompliance with staffing mandates when she was admitted. Plaintiff asserted claims for violation of Health and Safety Code section 1430(b), the Unfair Competition Law, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, seeking to proceed on behalf of a class of facility residents. The court granted the EmpRes Entities and Evergreen Entities' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, granted in part and denied in part the specific facility's motion to dismiss, and denied without prejudice the Rule 12(b)(2) motion for lack of personal jurisdiction. The core reasoning was that the complaint did not adequately allege alter ego, agency, or joint venture liability against the parent companies and that certain claims against the operating entity were barred or required further development under doctrines such as primary jurisdiction.

healthcareprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a lawsuit brought by Jacqueline Alford, individually and as successor to her son Peter Stewart, after Stewart died in a fire during a June 2007 standoff with multiple law enforcement agencies responding to a welfare check at a remote residence. Alford asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments against various officers and agencies, though she agreed to dismiss her conspiracy and municipal liability claims, leaving no claims against Humboldt County, the City of Eureka, or certain individuals. The court granted summary judgment to most remaining defendants on both constitutional claims, citing insufficient evidence or qualified immunity, but denied summary judgment on the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims against Deputy Barney and dismissed all claims against Humboldt County, Eureka, and Detective Schlesiger.

civil rightscriminal law

This case involves an equitable contribution claim by Evanston Insurance Company against American Safety Indemnity Company for sharing defense costs incurred in defending their common insured, Northern California Universal Enterprise Company, a home developer, in the underlying Ayala construction defect lawsuit. The parties stipulated to facts regarding one of American Safety's policies, which included a self-insured retention endorsement, a subcontractor's warranty endorsement, and a total prior work exclusion. The court granted in part and denied in part Evanston's motion for partial summary judgment and denied American Safety's cross-motion for summary judgment, finding that American Safety had a duty to defend under the policy. The core reasoning was that the policy conditions were satisfied, the endorsements did not eliminate coverage for the claims at issue, and the prior work exclusion did not bar the duty to defend.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves the Big Lagoon Rancheria Tribe's effort to obtain a tribal-state compact from California authorizing class III gaming activities on tribal lands under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The Tribe alleged that the State had failed to negotiate in good faith as required by IGRA after the Tribe requested such a compact. The court granted the Tribe's motion for summary judgment and denied the State's cross-motion, finding that the State had not met its burden to show good-faith negotiations. The decision rests on IGRA's statutory framework, which requires states to negotiate in good faith toward a compact covering gaming permitted within the state and allows tribes to sue to enforce that duty when the state has consented.

federal powerbusiness & regulatory

In this case, Adobe Systems Incorporated sued defendants Hoops Enterprise, LLC and Anthony Kornrumpf for copyright and trademark infringement, alleging unauthorized online sales of Adobe software without a license. Hoops responded with counterclaims and third-party claims against Adobe and the Software & Information Industry Association for copyright misuse and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, based on allegations that the plaintiffs improperly sought to restrict resale of software beyond the limits of the first sale doctrine. The court granted the motion to dismiss, dismissing the request for damages on the copyright misuse claims with prejudice and the declaratory relief and UCL claims with leave to amend. The core reasoning was that no legal authority supports damages for copyright misuse, the plaintiffs were engaged in lawful enforcement of valid copyrights which does not constitute misuse, and such enforcement does not amount to unfair competition under the UCL.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a constitutional challenge by California public employees in same-sex marriages or domestic partnerships to section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act and Internal Revenue Code section 7702B(f), which exclude same-sex spouses from favorable federal tax treatment for state long-term care insurance plans offered through CalPERS. The plaintiffs alleged that these provisions violate equal protection and substantive due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by preventing them from obtaining the insurance. The court denied the federal defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim, finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged an injury traceable to the laws that could be redressed by a favorable ruling. It held that the claims survived rational basis review at the pleading stage because the laws' classifications did not appear rationally related to a legitimate government interest, and a substantive due process claim was also adequately pled without needing to resolve whether a fundamental right was burdened.

civil rightsfamily lawtaxeshealthcare

In this antitrust case, direct purchaser plaintiffs and GSK sued Abbott Laboratories over its 400% price increase on Norvir, an HIV protease inhibitor used as a booster for competing drugs like Reyataz and Lexiva, which allegedly protected Abbott's own Kaletra product and harmed competitors and purchasers. Abbott moved for summary judgment on the claims of monopolization, attempted monopolization, and related state-law violations. The court granted the motions in part and denied them in part, holding that factual disputes existed on issues such as market definition, Abbott's monopoly power in the boosted PI market, and liability under theories like monopoly leveraging and Conwood, while finding insufficient evidence or legal support for other aspects including restricted output allegations and certain GSK damages.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

Plaintiff Kramer sued Autobytel, B2Mobile, and LeadClick under the TCPA, alleging they sent him and thousands of others unauthorized spam text messages advertising various services without consent. After Autobytel's individual claims were dismissed, the remaining defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the TCPA is unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment and that the complaint failed to adequately plead the claims under Rule 8, particularly regarding the details of multiple messages. The court rejected the vagueness challenge, noting that the statute provides fair notice of prohibited conduct even in the context of protected expression, and found the pleadings sufficient because the TCPA targets mass unsolicited commercial messages where detailed allegations for each communication are not required at the pleading stage. The United States intervened to defend the statute's constitutionality. The court therefore denied the motions to dismiss.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

This case involves an equitable contribution claim by two insurance companies against a third insurer, Swiss Reinsurance America Corp., regarding their shared coverage of The Herrick Corporation in a 2007 asbestos bodily injury lawsuit brought by the Strachans. The insurers had settled the underlying claim for $1.95 million, with plaintiffs funding most of it while defendant paid nothing, despite issuing two excess liability policies covering the relevant period. The court granted plaintiffs' summary judgment motion and denied defendant's cross-motion, awarding $283,334 plus seven percent prejudgment interest from March 2008. The decision turned on the policies' 'other insurance' clauses, which mandated contribution by equal shares among the excess insurers after the insured's $250,000 retained limit, making defendant responsible for a proportional share of the loss.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case is a shareholder derivative action brought by Accuray shareholders against eight directors, alleging that the directors made material misrepresentations about the company's backlog definition and revenue projections after changing the definition in 2007, failed to disclose risks, and engaged in insider trading by selling shares. The plaintiffs asserted claims including breach of fiduciary duty and violations of California Corporations Code section 25402, arguing that demand on the board would have been futile. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend, holding that the complaint did not plead particularized facts establishing demand futility under Delaware law, did not show the statements were false with the required particularity, and failed to adequately allege insider trading by specifying each defendant's knowledge and suspicious trading. The court noted the company's prior SEC disclosures about backlog risks and found the stock sales during the IPO unremarkable.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a securities fraud class action in which investors who purchased Accuray stock alleged that the company and its officers made material misrepresentations about the definition and reliability of the company's product backlog during and after its 2007 IPO. The plaintiffs claimed that statements assuring high conversion rates of backlog to revenue were false and that the company failed to disclose risks adequately. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, as well as the related Section 20(a) control-person claims, holding that the complaint did not plead falsity, scienter, or loss causation with the particularity required by the PSLRA and Rule 9(b). The court reasoned that the company's public filings contained sufficient risk disclosures and that the plaintiffs had not shown the challenged statements to be knowingly false when made. Plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint.

business & regulatory

The case involves pro se petitioner Keith Holder, a California state prisoner serving a seven-to-life sentence for kidnap for ransom, who challenged the Board of Parole Hearings' October 2006 denial of parole at his fifth suitability hearing via a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court granted the petition after reviewing the record, including the commitment offense facts, the petitioner's expressions of remorse, psychological evaluations showing low violence potential, and the absence of reliable evidence of current dangerousness. The court held that the state courts' upholding of the BPH decision constituted an unreasonable application of California's 'some evidence' standard and an unreasonable determination of the facts, citing precedents such as Hayward v. Marshall and Pirtle v. California Board of Prison Terms. It ordered the BPH to set a parole date within thirty days unless new post-2006 evidence of dangerousness is found. The topics tagged are criminal law and procedure.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between Seagate Technology and its insurers, National Union and ISOP, over the insurers' duty to defend Seagate against counterclaims of defamation in underlying actions and the payment of related defense attorneys' fees. The insurers moved to compel arbitration under California Civil Code section 2860, while Seagate moved for partial summary judgment that ISOP breached its duty to defend. The court denied the motion to compel arbitration and granted partial summary judgment, reasoning that the insurers' failure to timely pay defense costs constituted a breach of the duty to defend, which prevented them from invoking the arbitration provisions of section 2860.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability