Maxine M. Chesney

This case involved the SEC's claims against Robert Olins and his company Argyle Capital Management for violating Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 by selling unregistered SpatiaLight securities, following an earlier partial summary judgment on liability and a consent decree resolving related reporting violations under the Exchange Act. The court granted the SEC's motion in part by issuing a permanent injunction barring future Section 5 violations and ordering the defendants to disgorge the proceeds from the unlawful stock sales along with prejudgment interest, holding them jointly and severally liable. It denied in part the request for a third-tier civil penalty against Olins, citing the $180,000 penalty already imposed in the consent decree. The core reasoning for the injunction rested on the totality of circumstances, including the knowing nature of the violations, Olins's history of securities trading, and his continued role that could lead to future breaches, while disgorgement followed from the defendants' receipt of proceeds from the sales.

business & regulatory

The case involves four named plaintiffs and 120 additional class members who worked as loan officers for HSBC and allege that the company improperly classified them as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act, resulting in unpaid overtime compensation. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on four of HSBC's affirmative defenses and two damages-related issues. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding that HSBC could not rely on certain Department of Labor guidance or regulations to support an outside sales exemption defense under 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1) and related regulations, but allowing other potential defenses such as good faith to proceed to trial where factual disputes remained. The ruling turned on whether loan officers' primary duties involved making sales away from the employer's place of business on a customary and regular basis, with inferences drawn in favor of the non-moving party where evidence was lacking or disputed.

labor & employment

In Smith v. Ford Motor Co., plaintiffs Richard Smith and Rebecca Klein sued Ford, alleging that the company concealed high failure rates of ignition locks in 2000-2006 Focus vehicles caused by ergonomic and mechanical defects, provided an unconscionable standard warranty, and operated a secret warranty adjustment program. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Ford's motion for summary judgment on the claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, fraudulent concealment, and related theories. The court reasoned that plaintiffs lacked sufficient evidence to establish a safety risk from the defects, a duty to disclose, unconscionability of the warranty, or other elements of their claims, and one plaintiff had purchased her vehicle as-is from a third party.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves a dispute over ownership, copyrights, trademarks, and licensing rights to versions of Visualize-IT software used for energy data analysis, stemming from an employment relationship, a 2008 settlement agreement between Koperwhats and RLW, KEMA's acquisition of RLW, and subsequent allegations of unauthorized use and false statements. KEMA, RLW, and related parties filed claims and faced counterclaims for copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and unfair competition. The court denied Koperwhats and MiloSlick's motion to dismiss the complaint, granted in part and denied in part KEMA and RLW's motion to dismiss counterclaims, and granted the motions to dismiss filed by Pucket and Axmor, primarily due to inadequate pleading, failure to meet copyright registration requirements under 17 U.S.C. § 411, and other deficiencies like lack of a protectable trade secret. It also granted in part motions to strike certain prayers for damages on grounds including unclean hands and statutory limits.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a patent dispute between Medtronic and AGA Medical Corp., where the key issue was whether a document known as the Hughes document qualified as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 because it was a publicly accessible printed publication before the relevant patent filing dates. Medtronic moved for summary judgment arguing that the document, housed at the Defense Technical Information Center, was not publicly accessible absent evidence of meaningful cataloging or indexing. The court denied the motion, finding that citations to the Hughes document in two other publications created a triable issue of fact as to public accessibility, since those references demonstrated that interested skilled persons had located it without any showing of cataloging required. The decision was based on established case law holding that actual distribution or accessibility to relevant experts can suffice to establish a document as a printed publication even without indexing.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Betty Hoskins, a former Bayer janitorial worker who received long-term disability benefits under the Bayer Corporation Disability Plan after a 2001 workplace injury but had those benefits terminated in 2005. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment in an ERISA action challenging the plan administrator's decision. It granted the defendant's motion and denied the plaintiff's, holding that the administrator did not abuse its discretion because Hoskins failed to submit required documentation showing she remained under regular physician care and totally disabled from any occupation, despite multiple extension opportunities and requests; the functional capacity evaluation and lack of recent medical records supported the finding of eligibility for sedentary work. The opinion noted that independent medical reviewers confirmed the absence of sufficient evidence of ongoing disability.

labor & employment

The case involves Research in Motion's motion to stay proceedings on Visto's patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,225,231 and 7,228,383) while the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office conducts reexamination. The court granted the stay after evaluating three factors: the early stage of discovery with a trial date more than thirteen months away and no claim construction or dispositive motions filed; the likelihood that reexamination would cancel or alter claims and thereby simplify the issues; and the absence of undue prejudice to Visto, as mere delay from reexamination does not qualify as a tactical disadvantage. The ruling limits the number of claim terms for the upcoming hearing to six.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a patent infringement dispute in which VNUS Medical Technologies alleged that defendants AngioDynamics, VSI, and Diomed willfully infringed its patents related to medical procedures for vein treatment. The court considered defendants' motion for summary judgment of no willful infringement, applying the Seagate standard requiring proof of an objectively high likelihood of infringement that was known or obvious to the infringer. For AngioDynamics and VSI, the court granted summary judgment because VNUS's cited evidence—such as FDA filings by non-parties, expert testimony, and corporate statements—failed to support a finding that those defendants copied the patented methods or acted with the requisite knowledge. For Diomed, the court denied summary judgment, finding that testimony from Diomed's own inventors about learning tumescent anesthesia techniques from VNUS presentations raised a triable issue regarding copying and willfulness.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by Robert Dupuy against debt collector Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co. (WWR) alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and its California counterpart based on collection letters sent regarding a debt originally owed to Bank of America. The court considered WWR's motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part, dismissing claims that the letters implied an unintended threat of litigation and contained a false settlement offer, but denied it as to claims of false attorney involvement and failure to accurately state the debt amount. The decision applied the "least sophisticated debtor" standard to evaluate the letters' language and found sufficient allegations for some claims to proceed.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved AT&T's challenge to a condition imposed by the City of Walnut Creek on an encroachment permit for network upgrades under its Project Lightspeed initiative. The condition required AT&T to obtain a cable franchise before providing video programming services over city rights-of-way. AT&T sought declaratory relief and other remedies, claiming the condition was preempted by the federal Telecommunications Act and Cable Act, violated its state-granted franchise rights under California law, and infringed on constitutional protections. The court dismissed the federal preemption claims under the Telecommunications Act and Cable Act, finding no prohibition on telecommunications services or applicability to non-cable operators. It abstained under the Pullman doctrine from deciding the remaining state law and related federal constitutional claims, which turned on unresolved issues of California law better suited for state courts.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case is an ERISA action in which plaintiff Cynthia Fleming prevailed on her claim for unpaid disability benefits against defendants Kemper National Services, Inc. and related Vodafone disability plans. Fleming then moved for an award of attorneys’ fees totaling $102,862.50, costs of $2,363.87, and prejudgment interest of $4,885.03. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, awarding $102,593.75 in fees after applying the Hummell factors (including defendants’ ability to pay and the deterrent effect of a fee award), $286.28 in additional costs, and the full requested prejudgment interest calculated under 28 U.S.C. § 1961.

labor & employment

The case concerned a lawsuit by the parents of a pedestrian killed in San Francisco by a driver who had rented a car from Enterprise Rent-A-Car while his license was suspended and who was later convicted of driving under the influence. Plaintiffs asserted claims for negligent entrustment, wrongful death, vicarious liability under California's permissive-use statute (Vehicle Code § 17150), and unfair competition based on the companies' alleged practice of renting to unlicensed drivers. The court granted in part and denied in part the cross-motions for summary judgment, holding that triable issues of fact existed on whether defendants knew or should have known of the renter's license status for the negligence claims, that statutory liability caps applied to the permissive-use count, and that certain unfair-competition allegations could proceed while others could not. The decision applied California tort and statutory standards to determine the absence or presence of genuine issues of material fact under Rule 56.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a hedge fund, Highfields Capital Management L.P., seeking to identify an anonymous Yahoo! message board poster (John Doe) through a subpoena in connection with claims of defamation, commercial disparagement, and trademark infringement based on sarcastic online comments about the fund's investment performance. The district court adopted a magistrate judge's recommendation and granted Doe's motion to quash the subpoena served on Yahoo!. The court reasoned that the plaintiff failed to make the required evidentiary showing of a prima facie claim that the defendant had engaged in wrongful conduct causing real harm, as the posts were obvious sardonic commentary that a reasonable reader would not interpret literally as statements by or about the plaintiff. The court also denied a motion to strike the objection as untimely and confirmed its review under both de novo and clearly erroneous standards.

free speechproceduretorts & liability

This case involves plaintiff Maria Lawless, an attorney, seeking disability benefits under an employee benefits plan administered by defendants after claiming inability to work due to stress and depression beginning March 29, 2001. The plan required claimants to be under ongoing physician care and unable to perform the material duties of their occupation, with benefits starting after 91 days of disability. Defendants denied the claim following review of medical records and opinions from consulting psychiatrists, who determined significant impairment lasted only about two months before recovery. The court denied plaintiff's motion for judgment under Rule 52 and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, applying an abuse of discretion standard based on plan language granting interpretive authority to the administrator and finding the denial supported by evidence of limited disability duration and lack of documentation during later periods.

labor & employmenthealthcare

In Fleming v. Kemper National Services, Inc., the plaintiff, an employee of Vodafone, sued under ERISA to recover short-term and long-term disability benefits after the plan administrator Kemper denied her claims and failed to respond to her appeal. The court granted Fleming's motion for summary adjudication on the applicable standard of review. It held that de novo review, rather than abuse of discretion, would apply to both claims because the administrator missed the 45-day regulatory deadline for deciding the appeal and provided no evidence of a good-faith effort to comply, leaving no discretionary decision for the court to defer to.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

The case involved Adrian Mitchell's federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1998 California conviction for first-degree burglary. Mitchell claimed his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate or call Charles Mitchell as a witness who could corroborate that Mitchell entered the victims' home while being chased. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted the petition, concluding that the state courts' denial of the claim was an objectively unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington because counsel's omission was both deficient and prejudicial given the potential impact of the uncalled witness's testimony supporting a necessity defense. The court ordered Mitchell's release unless the state appealed or scheduled a new trial.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case involved plaintiff Dorothy Harvey's claims against Alameda County, Alameda County Medical Center (ACMC), and Dr. Milton Lorig arising from an incident at Highland General Hospital where Harvey sought emergency treatment for chest pain symptoms she believed indicated a heart attack. After a confrontation with a triage nurse, sheriff's deputies restrained Harvey, threw her from her wheelchair to the floor, handcuffed her, and administered Haldol pursuant to a temporary §5150 psychiatric hold, leading to injuries including a broken dental bridge. Harvey asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for excessive force, due process violations, and related Monell liability, plus state-law claims including violation of California's LPS Act. The court granted summary judgment to ACMC and Dr. Lorig on all federal claims, granted the County's motion in part, and remanded the remaining state-law claims to state court, finding insufficient evidence that any defendant deprived Harvey of a federal constitutional right or that county policies caused such a deprivation.

civil rightshealthcareproceduretorts & liability

The case involved appellant Rene Hilton's appeal from the bankruptcy court's disallowance of his $25,000 claim against debtor Richard Hongisto, which was based on a state court complaint alleging assault, battery, false imprisonment, and related tort claims arising from a 1997 incident at a Safeway store. The bankruptcy court conducted a trial where Hilton presented exhibits but no witnesses, admitted Hongisto's responses to requests for admission over Hilton's objections, denied Hilton's motion for a continuance, and ultimately disallowed the claim for lack of proof regarding any conspiracy or Hongisto's liability. On appeal, the district court reviewed the bankruptcy court's legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error, found no error in the evidentiary rulings or the denial of the continuance, and affirmed the orders disallowing the claim and related procedural matters. Hilton waived several arguments by failing to raise or brief them properly.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves plaintiffs who are victims, their descendants, and organizations representing those harmed by the Ustasha regime's atrocities during World War II, suing the Vatican Bank (IOR) and the Order of Friars Minor (OFM) for allegedly accepting, concealing, and profiting from looted assets and assisting war criminals through financial transfers and other means. The plaintiffs asserted claims including conversion, unjust enrichment, human rights violations, and violations of international law, seeking accounting, restitution, and damages. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The core reasoning centered on the political question doctrine, as adjudicating the claims would require courts to evaluate foreign policy decisions, wartime reparations, and international negotiations involving the executive branch and the Vatican, rendering the issues nonjusticiable.

civil rightspropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved the IRS petitioning to enforce a summons requiring Chevron Texaco Corporation to produce roughly 180 documents that the company withheld on claims of attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. Following in camera review by a magistrate judge, the district court adopted the magistrate's findings and recommendations in full (with one minor exception), ordering production of documents that did not qualify for protection. The core reasoning examined whether communications were made primarily to obtain legal advice (as opposed to business advice) in a corporate setting where in-house counsel performed dual roles, and whether documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation over the tax treatment of a transaction rather than in the ordinary course of business.

taxesfederal powerprocedure