Barbara A. Caulfield

This case concerns the U.S. government's request to extradite James Joseph Smyth to the United Kingdom to serve the remainder of a 1978 sentence for attempted murder following his escape from a Northern Ireland prison. The court denied certification for extradition under Article 3(a) of the U.S.-U.K. Supplementary Extradition Treaty, which bars surrender if the individual would face prejudice, punishment, or detention due to race, religion, nationality, or political opinions. After permitting discovery and an inquiry into the requesting country's criminal justice system, the court granted Smyth rebuttable presumptions of systematic retaliatory harm by security forces because the U.K. refused to produce relevant documents such as the Stalker-Sampson and Stevens reports. Based on evidence of physical intimidation, collusion with paramilitaries, and mistreatment of prisoners, the court concluded that Smyth had established he would face such prejudice if returned.

criminal lawfederal powercivil rights

The case involves a state prisoner who filed a pro se complaint against a federal Secret Service agent, alleging that the agent ordered prisons to censor or restrict the prisoner's legal mail following an interview about a letter the prisoner wrote. The court recharacterized the action as a Bivens claim against a federal official rather than one under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It found that the complaint stated a cognizable First Amendment claim regarding mail censorship but dismissed the due process claim for denial of access to the courts because the plaintiff did not allege any actual injury, while granting leave to amend within 30 days. The request to proceed in forma pauperis was held under submission pending any amendment.

civil rightsfree speech

In this case, American Economy Insurance sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify its insured, Reboans, Inc., in a lawsuit brought by Hunting World for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and related claims arising from Reboans selling counterfeit products. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance company, holding that there was no coverage under the commercial general liability policy for advertising injury. The reasoning was that the claims did not arise from the misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of doing business, as the core issue was the sale of counterfeit goods rather than any advertising activity covered by the policy.

business & regulatory

The case concerned claims by passengers injured in an aborted takeoff and crash of a Trans World Airlines international flight, seeking damages for physical injuries and emotional distress under the Warsaw Convention after removal from state court. The court addressed TWA's motions for partial summary judgment, ruling that the Warsaw Convention provides the exclusive basis for recovery and preempts state law claims. It determined that claims for emotional distress alone are barred by the Supreme Court's decision in Eastern Airlines v. Floyd, and that emotional distress damages require physical manifestations of injury, while also precluding punitive damages under the Convention. The reasoning relied on the text of the Warsaw Convention, precedents interpreting it, and the lack of sufficient evidence or timeliness issues in plaintiffs' opposition.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

In United States v. Hill, the defendants were charged in a federal indictment with carjacking under 18 U.S.C. § 2119 (Count One) for taking a motor vehicle by force while possessing a loaded firearm, and with using or carrying a firearm during a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (Count Two) based on the same conduct. The defendants moved to dismiss Count Two, arguing that the two counts punished the same offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Applying the Blockburger test, the court found that each statute required proof of essentially the same elements—possession and use of a firearm in the forcible taking of a vehicle—making them the same offense for double jeopardy purposes, with no clear congressional intent to allow cumulative punishments. The court therefore granted the motion and dismissed Count Two of the indictment.

criminal lawguns

This case involves insurance companies, including Fireman’s Fund, Federal Insurance, and Interstate, seeking declaratory relief against CoBank regarding their obligations under policies issued to XLS, Inc. (successor to Lawrence Systems) to cover an arbitration award stemming from losses CoBank incurred due to misrepresentations in inventory certificates under a 1986 Certified Inventory Control Service agreement. CoBank filed a counterclaim seeking to enforce coverage. The court granted the insurers’ motions for summary judgment on their complaints and partial summary judgment on the counterclaim, while denying CoBank’s motion for partial summary judgment. The reasoning centered on the absence of coverage under the policy terms for the underlying claims, including no duty to defend, the effect of prior arbitration findings via collateral estoppel, and the insured’s failure to meet cooperation or other policy conditions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves producers of public and leased access cable programs suing Viacom, the monopoly cable provider in San Francisco, for interrupting broadcasts of shows with sexual content pursuant to Viacom's written policies discouraging obscene and indecent programming. Plaintiffs alleged First Amendment violations and sought injunctive relief plus damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state claims, after Viacom canceled or cut shows like "Erotica SF," "Wax Lips," and "Museo Contempo." The court held that Viacom was not acting as an agent of the City when regulating indecent leased access material, recognized an implied private right of action for public access plaintiffs under 47 U.S.C. § 531 and an express cause of action for leased access plaintiffs under 47 U.S.C. § 532(d), and noted that total denial of access based solely on indecent content raised constitutional concerns under precedent like Alliance.

free speechcivil rights

The case involved defendant Guillermo Jaramillo, who was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1623 with making false statements in a witness declaration signed under penalty of perjury and in his subsequent sworn trial testimony. Instead of appearing before a grand jury investigating drug trafficking by Jose Garcia as required by subpoena, Jaramillo provided a detailed written statement to DEA agents and an AUSA that was later incorporated into grand jury testimony; he later gave materially contradictory testimony at Garcia's criminal trial. The court conducted a bench trial and found Jaramillo guilty, holding that the circumstances of the statement—including multiple drafts, notarization, explicit understanding it would substitute for grand jury testimony, and use by the grand jury—made it ancillary to the grand jury proceeding under the standard set in Dunn v. United States, as the formality was comparable to a deposition.

criminal law

The case involved plaintiffs who prevailed at trial on age discrimination claims against the California Public Utilities Commission under both the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and granted in part their motion for attorneys' fees and costs under California Government Code section 12965(b) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. Because the federal court exercised pendant jurisdiction over the state claims, it applied California substantive law to the fee award, finding that the plaintiffs had enforced an important public right benefiting a sizable class and that the private attorney general doctrine supported compensation for the litigation. The court also issued injunctive relief requiring retroactive appointments, back pay adjustments, and PERS benefits for the prevailing plaintiffs.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case arose from the construction of Fillmore Center, a large mixed-rent housing project in San Francisco, with plaintiffs (disability advocacy groups) alleging violations of federal, state, and local handicap-access laws against the developers, architects, and redevelopment agency. The court addressed multiple motions for summary judgment and dismissal, including whether the project was subject to Title 24 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, standing of plaintiffs, agency immunity and liability, statute of limitations, and new ADA claims. Prior orders had dismissed some claims against the architects while allowing others to proceed and permitting amendments to add parties and causes of action. Core reasoning focused on the applicability of accessibility standards tied to public funding, building permits, and statutory duties, while declining to impose liability absent clear legal obligations.

civil rightspropertyprocedure

The case involved a prisoner who sued the State of California and individual defendants for damages, alleging failure to provide adequate medical care for six days after an injury sustained in an attack by other inmates at San Quentin State Prison. The plaintiff originally filed negligence claims in state court and later added a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, prompting removal to federal district court. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the entire action to California Superior Court. It reasoned that the Eleventh Amendment bars federal jurisdiction over claims against the state, and that 28 U.S.C. § 1441 permits removal only of a civil action over which the federal court has jurisdiction in full, requiring remand of intertwined claims rather than piecemeal retention.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

In Emmert v. County of Sonoma, plaintiff Thomas Emmert sued Sonoma County and two deputy sheriffs for alleged excessive force during his October 1990 arrest, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as state-law theories. The defendants moved to dismiss the federal claims as barred by the statute of limitations. The court granted the motion, holding that § 1983 claims are governed by California's one-year personal-injury limitations period and that, although tolling under Cal. Gov't Code § 945.3 applied while criminal charges were pending, the additional tolling provision in § 945.6(b) did not apply because § 1983 claims are not subject to the California Tort Claims Act presentation requirements. The federal claims were therefore dismissed with prejudice more than a year after the plaintiff entered his no-contest plea, and the remaining state-law claims were remanded to state court.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

In Zatko v. Rowland, a prisoner filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging multiple constitutional violations by prison officials, including denial of group religious services, law library access, attorney visits, exercise, protection from a cellmate, and medical treatment. The court dismissed all claims as frivolous under Neitzke v. Williams, finding that some lacked any arguable legal basis while others were factually contradicted by the plaintiff's own deposition testimony. It also imposed a $100 Rule 11 sanction for willful misrepresentations in the complaints, noting the plaintiff's history as a vexatious litigant subject to prefiling review. The cases were closed after the dismissals.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs holding exclusive licenses to sell merchandise featuring images of musicians such as Madonna suing unlicensed producers and distributors of posterbooks and calendars containing those images under the Lanham Act and California's right of publicity law. The court exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over defendants' UK sales because those activities affected US commerce, involved parties with US ties, and did not conflict with UK law. It rejected a functionality defense and upheld the jury verdict for plaintiffs, awarding specified net profits and punitive damages while entering a permanent injunction against further unauthorized sales.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns the United Kingdom's 1992 request for extradition of James Joseph Smyth to serve the remainder of a 1978 sentence from a conviction in Northern Ireland. Smyth raised a defense under Article 3(a) of the U.S.-U.K. Supplemental Extradition Treaty, asserting that extradition should be denied because he would face punishment, detention, or restrictions on liberty due to his race, religion, nationality, or political opinions. The court had previously limited the scope of admissible evidence to require a showing of government involvement or a pattern of disproportionate treatment tied to protected characteristics. In this order, the court addressed Smyth's second discovery request seeking production of investigative reports including the Kincora Report, Stalker-Sampson Reports, Kelly Report, and Stevens Inquiry, analyzing their relevance to his claim and the United Kingdom's assertions of privilege.

criminal lawprocedure

In Smedley v. Capps, Staples, Ward, Hastings & Dodson, plaintiff Lauren Smedley, a lesbian associate at a law firm, alleged she was terminated in 1991 after her sexual orientation became known and following her involvement with a lesbian bar association, claiming the firm's instructions against discussing lesbian rights violated California Labor Code § 1101, which prohibits employers from controlling employees' political activities or affiliations. The court considered her motion for summary judgment on the § 1101 claim, relying on precedents like Gay Law Students Assn. v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. that recognize the fight against sexual orientation discrimination as political, and defendants' motion to dismiss emotional distress claims along with other causes of action. The court denied plaintiff's summary judgment motion, finding triable issues of fact regarding whether the firm's comments constituted an enforceable policy under the statute, and granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss while dismissing several other claims, including under § 1102 and the California Constitution, with prejudice. The decision turned on statutory interpretation of protected political activities and procedural standards for summary judgment and dismissal motions.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case arose after a TWA flight crashed during takeoff at JFK Airport, with all passengers surviving; several passengers holding tickets for international travel sued TWA in state court under state-law theories for physical injury and emotional distress. TWA removed those actions to federal court, contending that the Warsaw Convention supplied the exclusive cause of action for claims arising from international air carriage. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that the Convention might limit remedies but did not displace state-law causes of action. The court denied the motions to remand, concluding after examining Article 24 of the Convention and its drafting history that the treaty creates an exclusive federal cause of action that completely preempts state-law claims.

federal powerproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a motion by defendant Eastman Kodak Company to disqualify the Coudert Brothers law firm from representing plaintiffs Image Technical Services and other independent service organizations in an antitrust lawsuit against Kodak. The court granted the motion to disqualify. Coudert had represented Eastman Chemical, a Kodak division, on various matters for six years, creating a conflict when it agreed to represent the opposing parties in the Supreme Court appeal and district court proceedings. The core reasoning was that Coudert's disclosure to Eastman Chemical representatives about the conflict was inadequate, failing to provide sufficient information about the nature of the adverse representation or obtain proper informed consent as required by California Rules of Professional Conduct.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Picard v. Bay Area Regional Transit District, property owners sued BART in state court claiming that the agency's decades-long planning, public announcements, and delay in acquiring their land for a transit extension amounted to unreasonable pre-condemnation conduct that depressed the property's value, asserting both state inverse-condemnation claims and federal claims under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments plus 42 U.S.C. § 1983. BART removed the action to federal court on federal-question grounds. The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, ruling that the federal constitutional claims supplied subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, that the federal taking claims were not ripe under Williamson County, and that the court would exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims while deferring the federal ones until the state claims were resolved. The court also denied the request for attorney fees.

propertycivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

This case concerns the United Kingdom's request to extradite James Joseph Smyth to Northern Ireland to serve the remainder of a 1978 sentence for attempted murder of a prison guard. Smyth seeks to block extradition under Article 3(a) of the 1986 Supplemental Extradition Treaty by claiming he would face prejudice in trial, punishment, or liberty due to his religion and political opinions as a Catholic nationalist and Sinn Fein member. The court ruled that evidence is admissible only if it specifically shows personal discrimination on the treaty's protected grounds rather than general claims about the Northern Ireland justice system's fairness or unrelated risks of future harm. It further held that evidence of past confinement conditions or Diplock Court proceedings may be offered solely to support individualized prejudice, while evidence of post-release restraints requires proof of government involvement or a discriminatory pattern. These limits interpret the treaty text to focus on targeted bias rather than broad systemic critiques.

criminal lawcivil rights