Robert Peter Aguilar

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this CERCLA case, plaintiff K&B, a real estate developer, purchased contaminated property in Milpitas, California, incurred over $26 million in cleanup costs after discovering buried toxic waste, and sued defendants Unisys (as successor to the alleged waste generator), Doudell, and Diamond (alleged transporters) to recover a portion of those costs. The court addressed whether a potentially responsible party like K&B could pursue a cost recovery action under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), which imposes joint and several liability, or was limited to a contribution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f), which imposes several liability. The court held that only parties who are not themselves liable under CERCLA may bring a cost recovery action under § 9607(a), while liable parties are restricted to contribution actions under § 9613(f). This conclusion followed from the statutory text distinguishing the two remedies, differences in their limitations periods, and persuasive precedent from other circuits holding that the actions are distinct and do not overlap. K&B could pursue full cost recovery only if it established an affirmative defense showing it was an innocent purchaser under the statute's innocent landowner provisions.

environmentfederal powerpropertytorts & liability

This case involves environmental contamination from cattle dipping on the Markham Ranch in Monterey County, with Castlerock Estates, the current owner, seeking to recover cleanup costs under CERCLA Section 107 from Wells Fargo Bank as successor to Crocker Bank. Crocker had served as conservator and executor for prior owner Lucile Markham during periods when the property may have been contaminated. Wells Fargo moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Crocker was not an owner or operator at the time of the contamination and thus not liable. The court denied the motion, finding genuine factual disputes regarding the timing of the contamination and the extent of Crocker's involvement or indicia of ownership, as well as uncertainty in case law about whether conservators or executors can qualify as owners or operators under CERCLA.

environmentpropertybusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a coverage dispute between the County of Santa Clara and its insurers over responsibility for costs to remediate mercury contamination at a county park pursuant to a state Remedial Action Order. The primary insurer USF&G sought to exhaust its policy limits by paying the county and thereby shift defense obligations to the excess insurer ERC. On reconsideration, the court vacated its prior order and held that USF&G could not extinguish its duty to defend until a remediation plan is approved that establishes costs exceeding the primary limits. The court reasoned that, unlike a typical settlement or judgment, an RAO creates effective indemnity liability because the county faces substantial penalties for noncompliance and has no practical way to contest the order before incurring remediation expenses.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

In Hansen v. California Department of Corrections, a CDC employee who had admitted to prior marijuana use and agreed to random drug testing sought a temporary restraining order to block the department's policy of having a staff member directly observe her while providing a urine sample. The court granted the TRO, enjoining visual observation during the tests. It reasoned that while reasonable-suspicion drug testing of correctional employees is constitutional under precedents such as American Federation of Government Employees v. Roberts, direct observation must still satisfy Fourth Amendment reasonableness; here, less intrusive methods could ensure sample integrity, so routine visual monitoring was unnecessary and would cause irreparable privacy harm. The court scheduled a preliminary-injunction hearing and allowed the state to proceed with testing using alternative safeguards.

civil rightslabor & employmentcriminal law

The case involved a plaintiff who filed a new class action complaint alleging securities fraud under Sections 10(b), 20(a), 20A, and Rule 10b-5 against Cypress Semiconductor and its officers, covering the same class period and claims as a prior consolidated class action from which his counsel had been removed as lead counsel. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds that the claims were time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that the plaintiff lacked standing for the Section 20A claim. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice, holding that the prior class action did not toll the limitations period for a subsequent class action under precedents such as Robbin v. Flour Corp., even though class certification had been granted in the original suit, and noting the new filing appeared intended to circumvent the counsel removal order. The Section 20A claim was dismissed because the plaintiff conceded he could not allege contemporaneous trading with any defendant.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute within Teamsters Local 287 where plaintiffs, after investigating the secretary-treasurer's finances and winning an election, faced internal charges filed by political opponents, were tried and convicted in absentia by a board including their opponents, removed from office, fined, and ordered to pay attorney fees, with a re-run election resulting in their defeat. Plaintiffs sued under the LMRDA alleging violations of union free speech and assembly rights, the right to initiate lawsuits, and due process in disciplinary proceedings. The court granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment on the due process claim, denied it on the Section 101(a)(4) claim due to remaining factual questions about the reason for discipline, and denied defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. The due process ruling rested on findings that the trials were tainted by biased judges who were political opponents and reliance on evidence from prior flawed proceedings, while the lawsuit-related claim could not be resolved on summary judgment because it was unclear if discipline stemmed from initiating the lawsuit or from other conduct like misuse of union funds.

labor & employmentelectionsfree speechcivil rights

The case arose after Milpitas police officers responded to a reported domestic disturbance at the McKenzie home, leading to a confrontation in which officers used tasers to subdue Lucille and Cecil McKenzie, followed by arrests of the McKenzies and Alverta Bradford. Plaintiffs alleged unconstitutionally excessive force and arrests without probable cause, seeking municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 via Monell, but did not sue the individual officers. The court dismissed the §1981 claim for failure to allege racial animus, dismissed certain state-law claims against the city for lack of an alleged causative policy or custom, struck references to the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments as inapplicable, and granted leave to amend to assert a Fourth Amendment claim.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case concerns the enforceability of claims 1-9 in a reissue patent held by Bausch & Lomb after Hewlett-Packard obtained summary judgment on related claims 10-12. Following a remand from the Federal Circuit, which had affirmed that inequitable conduct during reissue proceedings can void patent claims but required a specific finding of intent to deceive the Patent and Trademark Office rather than gross negligence alone, the district court made additional findings based on the totality of circumstances. The court determined that Bausch & Lomb, through its agents, showed studied ignorance, reckless indifference to the truth, gross negligence, and a complete absence of good faith evidence, creating a clear inference of intent to mislead the PTO. As a result, the court held claims 1-9 unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during the reissue application process.

business & regulatory

This case involved the estate and family of Anton Ward suing the City of San Jose and three police officers after the officers shot and killed Ward during an incident at his home, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of Ward's constitutional rights and under California's wrongful death statute. The jury returned a special verdict finding that the defendants violated Ward's rights under § 1983 in a way that caused his death, while also determining in the wrongful death portion that the shooting was unintentional or justified, that defendants were negligent, and that their negligence was not the proximate cause of death. The court addressed post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, focusing on whether the verdict answers were irreconcilably inconsistent. The court harmonized the answers by reconciling the § 1983 findings with the others under applicable legal standards for consistency and entered judgment in favor of the estate against the individual officers.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involved Hewlett-Packard suing Bausch & Lomb for infringing its LaBarre patent on an x-y plotter that uses grit-coated wheels to move paper back and forth with minimal slippage for accurate plotting. Bausch & Lomb countered that the patent was invalid due to obviousness from prior art and the inventor's failure to disclose the best mode of the invention. After a bench trial, the court held the patent valid and infringed, finding that the inventor had disclosed the sandpaper-wrapped wheel method as the best mode and that the prior art references did not render the grit-wheel drive obvious. The court also ruled that Bausch & Lomb had not induced infringement by a third party through an indemnification agreement. Issues of damages and patent marking were deferred to a later phase.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved claims by employers and a class of Hispanic workers that the Immigration and Naturalization Service conducted workplace raids in a pattern violating the Fourth Amendment, including provoking exigent circumstances for warrantless entries, using deficient warrants or coerced consent, and detaining or arresting workers without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. A 1985 preliminary injunction had already restricted such practices. After the plaintiffs presented their case-in-chief in a multi-month trial, the defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for dismissal. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had established not only a prima facie case but that the evidence preponderated in their favor on key issues including standing of class representatives and challenges to the raids. The ruling addressed burdens of proof, the validity of warrants and consent, and the standards for detentions and arrests during the operations.

immigrationcivil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involved a qui tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act against Lockheed Missiles and Space Company alleging fraud on government contracts. Lockheed moved to dismiss the action, contending that the qui tam provisions of the Act violate Article II of the Constitution by improperly delegating prosecutorial functions to private citizens and the judiciary, breach the Appointments Clause, and fail to satisfy Article III standing requirements. The court denied the motion and upheld the constitutionality of the provisions. It based its decision on the longstanding historical tradition of qui tam actions in English and early American law, the lack of undue interference with core executive functions, and precedent recognizing relators' standing through statutory assignment of the government's interest.

procedurefederal power

This case involves Intel Corporation seeking reimbursement from its insurer Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company for costs of investigating and remediating soil and groundwater contamination caused by hazardous chemical solvents stored at Intel's former manufacturing facility in Mountain View, California. Intel had entered a consent decree with the EPA and state agencies to clean up the site under CERCLA after discovering the pollution from underground tanks used in semiconductor production. The court granted Intel's motion for summary adjudication, holding that the comprehensive general liability policy covers at least some of these cleanup expenses as damages from property damage caused by an occurrence. The ruling rests on interpreting the policy language to encompass remediation costs, drawing on principles of mitigation and out-of-state precedents, as a matter of first impression in California.

environmentbusiness & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case concerned whether Allstate Insurance had a duty under a condominium owner's policy to defend or indemnify Floyd Talbot against a civil lawsuit brought by Jane Doe and her parents for sexual molestation that occurred over six months in 1984. The court granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the insurer had no obligation to provide coverage or a defense. The core reasoning was that the molestation did not qualify as an accidental loss under the policy, constituted criminal conduct under Penal Code § 288(a) that was excluded by both the policy terms and California Insurance Code § 533, and involved willful acts for which public policy barred indemnification; the court also held that punitive damages could not be covered as a matter of law.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability