Samuel Conti

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.

propertybusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

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.

environmentproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a technology investment company that sued real estate brokers and other defendants over two loan transactions, alleging inadequate investigation of collateral and false expense representations in the Bretz transaction, plus unauthorized removal of escrow funds and broken promises about title, interest, and participation in the Roem transaction. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint. It dismissed the RICO claim with prejudice for failure to adequately plead a pattern of racketeering, dismissed the declaratory relief and quia timet claims without leave to amend because monetary damages provided an adequate remedy and the claims were redundant, and allowed the remaining claims to proceed.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case is a securities class action against Cadence Design Systems and several executives alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. Plaintiffs claim the defendants made false statements about Cadence's earnings in the first and second quarters of 2008 by improperly classifying two major license agreements as term licenses rather than subscription licenses, which allowed improper immediate revenue recognition instead of ratable recognition over the license term as required by GAAP; after an internal investigation, Cadence restated its earnings. The court denied the motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, finding that the added details in the FAC now adequately plead the claims with particularity and raise a strong inference of scienter as required by the PSLRA.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned efforts by plaintiff Yugen Kaisha, Y.K.F. (YKF) to set aside as fraudulent a transfer of shares in Smart Alec’s Intelligent Food, Inc. from Alexander Popov to defendant Stephanie Dodson, along with Dodson’s counterclaim alleging bad-faith delay by YKF and intervenor Martin Triano’s request for a declaratory judgment recognizing an enforceable lien on the shares under a promissory note. Following a seven-day bench trial, the court found that YKF had established the transfer was fraudulent, that Dodson was not entitled to relief on her counterclaim, and that Triano had proven the shares were subject to his lien. The court determined the share purchase agreement was actually executed shortly before Popov’s bankruptcy filing and backdated to shield the assets from creditors. Evidence of timing, the parties’ relationships, and surrounding circumstances supported the finding of fraudulent intent under applicable bankruptcy and state law provisions. The ruling on the lien rested on the validity and priority of the promissory note between Triano and Popov.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case concerns a pension fund's attempt to collect withdrawal liability from an employer that had closed its business and sold its assets. Plaintiffs Operating Engineers’ Pension Trust Fund and its trustees sued Clark’s Welding and Machine and its former owners for $330,921 after the company ceased contributing to the multiemployer plan. The court granted summary judgment in part to the plaintiffs, holding that Clark’s Welding is liable for the full assessed amount. The decision rested on the fact that a prior stipulation settling only delinquent contributions did not release or waive future withdrawal liability claims, and the defendants had failed to timely request review or initiate arbitration as required by the notice they received. The court deferred ruling on interest, liquidated damages, fees, and individual liability of the owners pending further briefing.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a dispute between plaintiff John Hagan and defendants California Physicians’ Service and Blue Shield over the rescission of a health insurance policy covering Hagan and his wife, which led to state-law claims for breach of contract and bad faith. Blue Shield removed the action to federal court, arguing that the policy was part of an ERISA plan because premiums were paid by Hagan’s businesses, which would preempt the state claims and create federal jurisdiction. The court granted Hagan’s motion to remand, finding that the Blue Shield policy was separate from the ERISA-covered employee policy and was intended as a personal policy despite business payments, so ERISA did not apply. The court emphasized that doubts about removal must be resolved against federal jurisdiction and that the removing party bears the burden of establishing it by a preponderance of the evidence.

healthcarelabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a dispute over attorneys' fees following a 2007 district court judgment dismissing plaintiffs' claims against defendants CBS Corporation and Roche in a lawsuit arising from a 2003 Purchase and Sale Agreement for billboards. After the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment, the Special Master recommended, and the court approved, awards of attorneys' fees and costs to the defendants' counsel totaling over $550,000, based on a contractual provision requiring payment of fees upon a final judgment against a defaulting party. The court rejected plaintiffs' objections that the fee clause applied only to contract defaults rather than dismissed tort or statutory claims, that Roche was not a signatory, and that antitrust and nuisance statutes precluded fee recovery, finding the contract entitled the prevailing defendants to fees. The core reasoning centered on the broad applicability of the agreement's attorneys' fees clause to the outcome of the litigation.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

This case is a putative class action brought by Johnny Wang against Asset Acceptance, LLC, alleging improper debt collection reporting practices under California's Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. Wang claimed that Asset reported debts to credit agencies without noting disputes or that the debts were time-barred by the statute of limitations. After removal from state court, the district court granted in part and denied in part Asset's motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the Unfair Competition Law claims with prejudice, finding them preempted by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, but allowed the direct CCRAA claims and a request for declaratory relief to proceed.

business & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Johnny Wang sued defendant Asset Acceptance in California state court, alleging improper debt collection practices under the state's Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act by failing to report disputed or time-barred debts to credit agencies, and seeking to represent two putative classes of California residents. Asset removed the action to federal district court under the Class Action Fairness Act, asserting minimal diversity, a class of at least 100 members, and an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million. Wang moved to remand, arguing that Asset had not sufficiently proven the jurisdictional requirements. The court denied the motion, holding that Asset's evidence of over 177,000 relevant California accounts established by a preponderance that the class size and amount-in-controversy thresholds were met, and that supporting declarations could properly supplement the notice of removal without asserting new jurisdictional bases. The court also denied Wang's request for expedited discovery on jurisdiction.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is a class action challenging fees charged by Seattle Mortgage Company in reverse mortgage (HECM) loans, specifically an origination fee paid to the lender and a correspondent fee to the broker Home Center. Plaintiff Mary Labrador alleged that these fees violated federal regulation 24 C.F.R. § 206.31(a)(1) because the payments created a prohibited financial interest between the mortgagee and broker, and asserted claims including elder abuse, unfair business practices, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Home Center qualified as a mortgage broker under the regulation and whether the fees were impermissible inducements. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, applying the liberal standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) to allow potential addition of claims.

business & regulatoryprocedureproperty

This case arose from a 2005 car accident in California in which plaintiff Philip Johnson was injured by a driver named John Ryan; Johnson later obtained a $750,000 stipulated judgment against Ryan and sued Ryan's purported insurer, American Casualty, for breach of contract, bad faith, and related claims after the insurer refused to defend or indemnify Ryan. The policy at issue was a business auto policy issued to V&C Construction, naming that company and certain lessors as insureds, and the court examined whether Ryan qualified as a permissive user of a covered auto. On the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the district court held that Ryan was not an insured under the policy language, that American Casualty therefore had no duty to defend or indemnify, and that no facts supported waiver or estoppel. The court accordingly granted summary judgment to the insurer on all claims.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a dispute between Plaintiff Barrie Sandy and Defendants Mark McClure and Paula Wallem arising from several failed business ventures, including the purchase and management of condominiums in Maine, a hotel acquisition, and a tavern lease in New Hampshire, leading to thirteen causes of action such as breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Following a two-day bench trial, the court found that McClure breached an agreement to manage the Ocean Ridge Condominiums and assume 80% of related debt service, resulting in damages to Sandy. The court awarded Sandy $166,533.06 against McClure on the breach of contract claim but ruled that Sandy failed to prove the remaining claims, including those involving alleged improper payments, forged notes, and emotional distress. The decision was based on findings of fact from witness testimony and documentary evidence regarding the formation of MB Equity, LLC, the parties' agreements, and the lack of proof for fraud or other torts.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

This case involved former employees of Thelen LLP, a law firm that dissolved in 2008, who sued five other law firms that had hired some of Thelen's partners and employees, alleging that these firms violated the federal WARN Act by failing to provide 60 days' notice before the plaintiffs' layoffs. The plaintiffs claimed that the law firms had effectively purchased portions of Thelen's business and thereby became responsible for WARN Act obligations as successor employers. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that the WARN Act's sale-of-business exception applied only where a business continues as a going concern with actual transfer of operations and that merely hiring individual employees from a dissolving firm did not trigger such liability for the defendants. The court reasoned that Thelen alone ordered the layoffs and that the defendants had no employment relationship with the plaintiffs that would impose notice requirements.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves plaintiff Bill Berdux, a former marketing manager, who sued defendants Project Time & Cost, Inc., PT & C Forensic Consulting Services, P.A., and executives Grover Davis and Ryan Maphet after accepting a job offer to open a San Francisco office. Berdux alleged intentional misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of covenant of good faith, promissory estoppel, and violation of California Labor Code section 970, claiming the defendants falsely represented that they had obtained necessary local insurance approvals and were ready to start operations. The defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, and statutes of limitations. The court denied the motion, finding that specific personal jurisdiction existed over all defendants due to their purposeful contacts with California through the hiring process and employment in San Francisco, that service on the individual defendants was valid, and that the claims were not barred by any statute of limitations.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case involves plaintiff Euel Allen suing mortgage lenders and related entities after non-judicial foreclosure proceedings on his Oakland home, alleging false representations and failures to disclose loan terms during refinancing in 2006. The court considered motions to dismiss from defendants California Reconveyance Company, JP Morgan Chase Bank, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. It granted the motion by CRC in full and the motion by JP Morgan and MERS in part, dismissing certain claims for insufficient pleading under standards like those in Twombly and Iqbal, while allowing others to proceed, including some under TILA. The reasoning focused on the legal sufficiency of the allegations, judicial notice of public records, and whether claims met plausibility requirements without accepting conclusory statements.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory