District Court, N.D. California — appointed by Jimmy Carter
Robey v. Shapiro, Marianos & Cejda, L.L.C.
District Court, N.D. California · 2004-09-30 · cited 1×
The case involved a plaintiff suing a law firm handling foreclosures and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, claiming the firm concealed a flat-fee agreement with mortgage companies and sought attorney fees in excess of that amount in foreclosure actions and demands, while MERS falsely asserted it was the note holder. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the federal FDCPA claim, ruling that the fees requested were authorized by Oklahoma statute and the underlying mortgage agreements and thus did not constitute unfair or unconscionable collection practices under the Act. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims and dismissed the entire action, also denying an unrelated request to supplement the record.
propertyprocedure
Vance v. County of Santa Clara
District Court, N.D. California · 1996-06-11 · cited 163×
This case involved employment discrimination claims by four jail guards against the County of Santa Clara, its Department of Corrections, and individual supervisors, alleging they faced race-based harassment, failure to promote, and a hostile work environment, with additional claims of gender and religious discrimination. The Fourth Amended Complaint asserted causes of action under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and California law. The court dismissed the § 1981 claim against all defendants with prejudice, holding that for state actors the exclusive federal remedy lies under § 1983 per Supreme Court precedent and Ninth Circuit authority. It also dismissed the Department of Corrections from the § 1983 claim with prejudice because municipal departments are not suable “persons” under the statute, while dismissing the individual defendants from that claim without prejudice due to insufficiently specific factual allegations against each one.
civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure
Gallo v. Kernan
District Court, N.D. California · 1996-06-04 · cited 3×
In Gallo v. Kernan, an inmate petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after his state convictions for two counts of sodomy and one count of oral copulation against his then-wife, arguing violations of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. He claimed the prosecution suppressed tape recordings, notes, and a letter that could have impeached the victim's credibility, failed to disclose her personal relationship with an investigating officer, did not recuse a personally involved prosecutor, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for not using the victim's prior inconsistent statements. The district court denied the petition, finding that the suppressed evidence was cumulative and not material, the officer relationship did not involve gross impropriety affecting the trial, the prosecutor's actions had valid explanations and did not deny a fair trial, and the ineffective assistance claim did not meet the standard for relief. The court concluded that Gallo was not entitled to habeas relief on any of the due process or Sixth Amendment claims.
criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure
In Re Hsia
District Court, N.D. California · 1995-06-08 · cited 1×
The case involves debtor Jim H. Hsia appealing the bankruptcy court's denial of his motion to avoid two judicial liens held by creditors Bi-Rite Restaurant Supply and Wolfe Creek Cafe, Inc., and his claim to an automatic homestead exemption on his 20% interest in a jointly owned family residence valued at $630,000. The district court held that a debtor's right to the California automatic homestead exemption is determined as of the date the bankruptcy petition is filed, not by prior state court rulings on enforcement actions. Applying 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 703.140, the court found that Hsia qualified for the $75,000 exemption because no valid declaration of homestead had been recorded by co-tenants and the exemption applies regardless of outstanding money judgments. The liens totaling approximately $95,300 impaired Hsia's $60,000 equity share after subtracting the senior mortgage, so the court reversed the bankruptcy order and granted lien avoidance.
propertyprocedure
Datastorm Technologies, Inc. v. Excalibur Communications, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California · 1995-06-07 · cited 6×
In this copyright infringement case, Datastorm Technologies alleged that Excalibur Communications copied the WMODEMS.DAT file, a compilation of modem initialization strings, from its PROCOMM PLUS software program in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 106. Excalibur moved to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), arguing that Datastorm's copyright registration was invalid due to an insufficient response on the application regarding the compilation, which it claimed constituted fraud on the Copyright Office. The court denied the motion, holding that the certificate of registration provides prima facie evidence of a valid copyright, and any determination of fraud or prejudice requires factual findings beyond the pleadings that are inappropriate on a motion to dismiss. The court assumed the truth of Datastorm's allegations, including ownership of a valid copyright and infringement by Excalibur, and found that Excalibur failed to show the law would not permit relief.
business & regulatoryprocedureproperty
In Re Cypress Semiconductor Securities Litigation
District Court, N.D. California · 1995-06-06 · cited 16×
This case was a securities fraud class action brought by investors who purchased Cypress Semiconductor Corporation’s stock between August 1991 and April 1992, alleging that the company and its executives violated §§ 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by issuing misleading public forecasts about revenue and earnings while concealing adverse facts on product demand, customer relationships, manufacturing problems, and the reliability of its forecasting system. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted the motion in full, finding no genuine issue of material fact because no reasonable jury could conclude that any of Cypress’s statements were false or misleading. The court did not reach the issues of scienter or individual defendants’ liability.
business & regulatory