In this case, plaintiff James Jardine sued his insurer, Maryland Casualty Company, after it refused to pay the full amounts he claimed under a commercial property insurance policy for two incidents of damage to his building: deterioration of walls caused by improper plaster application by tenants, and minor fire damage from a halogen light fixture. Maryland had already paid partial amounts for both claims but denied further coverage. The court granted Maryland's motions for summary judgment on both claims. It reasoned that the wall damage fell outside the policy's coverage for "specified causes of loss" and was subject to exclusions for faulty workmanship and corrosion, while the fire damage had been adequately compensated by the payments already made, with no evidence supporting additional amounts owed.
The case involved plaintiff Antonio Prado's lawsuit against the Allied Domecq Spirits & Wine Group Disability Income Policy and its claims administrator, Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, alleging improper denial of long-term disability benefits under ERISA, violation of California Insurance Code section 10111.2, and failure to produce records. The parties filed cross-motions for judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 following a bench trial, with the court reviewing the administrative record plus limited additional evidence due to Liberty's conflict of interest. The court made findings on the admissibility and content of the claim file, plan documents (including discrepancies between the policy and summary plan description), medical evidence, and surveillance video, while noting procedural defects in Liberty's handling of the benefits appeal but declining to exclude the evidence on that basis.
This case concerns Tesoro Refining's termination of a refinery operator who had returned from military service with foot disabilities, along with the United Steel Workers union's handling of his subsequent grievance. The plaintiff alleged violations of the federal USERRA statute and California's FEHA law, including disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in an interactive process to explore reasonable accommodations. The court granted the union's motion for summary judgment in full. It granted Tesoro's motion in part but denied it in part, finding genuine disputes of material fact as to whether the employer had properly assessed the plaintiff's limitations or could have accommodated his condition through measures such as modified duties or further medical evaluation.
This case is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act brought by current and former employees of 24 Hour Fitness alleging that the company's policies improperly denied them overtime pay. The court had previously granted conditional certification to two classes: one of personal trainers and one of managers. After extensive discovery, including document production, depositions, and expert reports, the court granted the defendants' motions to decertify both classes. The core reasoning was that the named plaintiffs and opt-in class members were not similarly situated, as their job duties, compensation structures, and potential exemptions varied significantly across different club locations and roles.
In this case, plaintiff Victor Robles sued his former employer Gillig LLC in California state court, alleging state-law claims including disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, failure to accommodate, and wrongful termination after he was fired during a 60-day introductory employment period due to a foot infection. Defendant removed the action to federal court, arguing that the claims were preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act because resolution would require interpreting the collective bargaining agreement governing the introductory period. The court granted the motion to remand, holding that the claims were not preempted because they turned on factual questions of the employer's motive rather than interpretation of the CBA's terms, and that removal was therefore improper. The court denied the request for attorneys' fees, finding the removal, though erroneous, was not objectively unreasonable given the imprecise nature of section 301 preemption analysis.
This case arose from the 2007 collision of the cargo ship M/V COSCO BUSAN with the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, which caused an oil spill and led to a class action lawsuit by Dungeness Crab skippers and crewmembers against Regal Stone, Fleet Management, and the vessel for strict liability, negligence, and related claims under federal and state law. Following approval of a class settlement funded in part through an OPA claims process, Class Counsel moved for attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, awarding reduced amounts after in camera review of time records and supplemental filings. Reductions were made for specific billing issues including duplicative entries, work on unrelated individual claims, and time spent on media contacts, with the court calculating lodestar-based reasonable fees and addressing defendants' objections.
