Florence-Marie Cooper

This case involves a dispute over the alleged misuse of a nutritionist's intellectual property, including formulas, trademarks, and likeness, in marketing protein products, with plaintiffs asserting a federal Lanham Act false advertising claim alongside state law claims for trademark infringement, misappropriation, and related torts. A parallel state court action had been filed earlier but was substantially amended after the federal suit, and defendant Wright moved for abstention or stay under the Colorado River doctrine due to the concurrent proceedings. The court denied the motion, holding that federal courts have a strong obligation to exercise their jurisdiction and that the relevant abstention factors—including the order of filings, presence of federal law issues, adequacy of the state forum, and lack of forum shopping—did not present the exceptional circumstances needed to warrant abstention or dismissal.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a trademark dispute in which plaintiff Roxbury Entertainment, owner of the registered 'Route 66' mark for television programs, DVDs, and related entertainment content, sued defendants Penthouse Media Group and related entities for using the mark as the title of an adult film and on its DVD packaging. Plaintiff asserted claims under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition, among others. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims. It held that defendants' use of the mark in the title of an expressive work was protected by the First Amendment under the Rogers v. Grimaldi test and constituted fair use, rendering the use non-infringing and non-dilutive.

business & regulatoryfree speech

In Garcia v. Wachovia Mortgage Corp., the plaintiff homeowner sued Wachovia after a 2008 mortgage refinancing on her Los Angeles property, asserting claims for rescission and damages under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z for alleged disclosure failures, plus violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), California's Unfair Competition Law, and quiet title. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted Wachovia's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in full. The court held that the TILA claims were time-barred by the one-year limitations period for damages and three-year period for rescission, with no equitable tolling available because the loan documents disclosed the interest rate terms and no fraud was shown. It further concluded that Wachovia, as a federally regulated savings bank, was exempt from the FDCPA and that the remaining claims failed to state a cognizable cause of action.

business & regulatorypropertyfederal power

This case concerns the government's civil forfeiture action seeking judicial forfeiture of assorted firearms, motorcycles, and other personal property seized during the execution of warrants in a related multi-defendant criminal prosecution against alleged members of the Mongols motorcycle gang. Some claimants not named in the criminal indictment opposed a stay and sought limited civil discovery to challenge probable cause. The court granted the government's motion to stay the civil forfeiture action until the conclusion of the criminal case. The core reasoning was that civil discovery would adversely affect the criminal prosecution by requiring disclosure of evidence and investigative information not ordinarily discoverable under criminal rules, and given the connections between non-defendant claimants and indicted defendants.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

This case concerns a dispute between Fleischer Studios, Inc. and A.V.E.L.A. Inc. over ownership of trademark and related rights in the Betty Boop cartoon character. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its trademark and unfair competition claims and granted the defendants' cross-motion on those claims. The core reasoning focused on breaks in the chain of title: the original Fleischer entities assigned rights to Paramount in 1941, after which subsequent transfers did not convey enforceable trademark rights in the Betty Boop image or name to the current plaintiff. The court found no valid common-law or registered trademark rights traceable to the plaintiff that could support the claims.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involves Janice Taylor's claim for long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed plan sponsored by her former employer, SmithKline Beecham Corp. After initially receiving benefits, the plan administrator denied her claim based on insufficient proof of ongoing disability, leading to an administrative appeal and court review. The court reviewed the decision under an abuse of discretion standard and concluded that Taylor is entitled to benefits, finding that the administrator failed to adequately consider her medical conditions including hand impairments, seizures, and thrombosis, and did not provide proper guidance on required documentation. The reasoning centered on the administrator's structural conflicts of interest, inadequate review of evidence, and improper denial despite supporting medical reports and a Social Security disability award.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a dispute over eligibility for long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed employee welfare plan issued by the predecessor of defendant Union Security Insurance Company. Plaintiff Igor Velikanov, an electronic test engineer, stopped working in April 2005 due to lower back and left leg pain from a sacral arachnoid cyst and disc disease, and submitted a claim after his coverage terminated in August 2005. The court reviewed the administrative record de novo and held that Velikanov qualified for benefits because he satisfied the plan's occupation test for disability during the 90-day qualifying period and thereafter, based on consistent medical evidence from his treating physicians showing he could not perform material duties of his occupation. The insurer's denial was rejected as relying on erroneous and biased reviews plus limited surveillance video that failed to show sustained ability to work without pain.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case involved claimants whose motorcycles were seized by federal agents during arrests in a multi-defendant criminal prosecution; after not receiving timely notice of the seizures, the claimants filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) seeking return of the property pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983. The government later filed a civil forfeiture complaint covering the seized items, prompting the claimants to seek consolidation of the actions, dismissal of the forfeiture complaint, and return of the motorcycles. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss the Rule 41(g) action with prejudice and denied the claimants' cross-motions. The decision rested on the rule that a pending civil forfeiture proceeding supplies adequate remedies for challenging the seizure, rendering a separate equitable Rule 41(g) motion unnecessary and improper under Ninth Circuit precedent.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

This case involved plaintiff Polly Webb, a legal secretary, who sought long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed plan after ceasing work due to migraine headaches. The plan, administered by Hartford, defined disability in stages and granted the administrator discretion to interpret terms and determine eligibility. After reviewing medical records and independent physician assessments, Hartford denied the claim, finding that Webb's condition did not prevent full-time work. The court reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and concluded that the decision was supported by evidence, including notes from Webb's own physicians indicating she could perform her job duties when not experiencing symptoms and that she was expected to return to work within months.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs who were admitted as conditional permanent residents under the EB-5 investor program and later filed naturalization applications after five years. USCIS had not adjudicated either the petition to remove conditions on their status or the naturalization applications within required timeframes, leading plaintiffs to seek de novo review in district court under 8 U.S.C. § 1447(b). The court granted summary judgment sua sponte for the government defendants. It reasoned that conditional permanent residents cannot be naturalized until the conditions on their status are removed by USCIS, and that the statutory framework requires resolution of the condition-removal petition before naturalization eligibility can be determined.

immigrationprocedure

This case is a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by a state prisoner challenging his 2003 California convictions for evading a police officer and firearm possession by a felon, along with related sentencing enhancements based on prior convictions. The district court reviewed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after the petitioner had attempted to exhaust additional claims in state court regarding self-representation rights under Faretta v. California and sentencing procedures under Cunningham v. California. The court adopted the recommendation in full, denied the First Amended Petition on the merits and procedural grounds, and dismissed the action with prejudice. Core reasoning included findings that certain claims were unexhausted or procedurally defaulted, that the sentencing claim was barred by Teague v. Lane non-retroactivity principles, and that any remaining errors were harmless or lacked merit under applicable precedent.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case concerned plaintiff Igor Gunn's appeal of defendant Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company's termination of his long-term disability benefits under an ERISA plan sponsored by his former employer. Gunn had been approved for benefits based on symptoms including those from multiple sclerosis and depression, but after 24 months Reliance ended payments citing a policy limitation applicable to disabilities caused or contributed to by mental or nervous disorders. On remand from the Ninth Circuit following Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., the district court reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion, taking into account Reliance's conflict of interest as both insurer and claims administrator. The court analyzed medical evidence in the record, including opinions from treating physicians and consultants, and found deficiencies in the insurer's evaluation process and selective reliance on certain reports.

healthcarelabor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a dispute between Fleischer Studios, Inc. and defendants including A.V.E.L.A., Inc. over intellectual property rights in the Betty Boop cartoon character, with the plaintiff asserting ownership of copyrights in the character as well as federal and common-law trademarks, and alleging infringement based on defendants' sale of merchandise using restored vintage movie posters. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its copyright infringement claim and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on that claim, while reserving ruling on the trademark and unfair competition claims pending supplemental briefing. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff conceded it did not own the copyrights in the original cartoon films featuring Betty Boop, that those copyrights had not been properly renewed and thus entered the public domain, and that the plaintiff therefore could not establish ownership of a copyright in the character itself for purposes of its infringement claim.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case concerned allegations by participants in Fremont General Corporation's 401(k) and ESOP plans that plan fiduciaries violated ERISA by purchasing and retaining company stock as an investment option despite knowing or having reason to know of the company's severe financial distress, mismanagement, and related issues that rendered the stock imprudent. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in its entirety. It reasoned that while ERISA provides exemptions from diversification and certain prudence obligations for eligible individual account plans, those exemptions are not absolute, and the detailed allegations of known financial deterioration and other misconduct were sufficient at the pleading stage to state claims for breach of the duty to prudently manage assets, failure to monitor other fiduciaries, failure to disclose material information to participants, and co-fiduciary liability.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Neri after her California state court conviction for second-degree murder and assault on a child under eight causing death, for which she received a sentence of 25 years to life. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation following de novo review of objections and granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus. The ruling required that the petitioner be retried within sixty days of the judgment becoming final, plus any authorized state-law delay, or else be discharged from all adverse consequences of the conviction. The core reasoning rested on findings that the petition raised meritorious constitutional claims, primarily ineffective assistance of counsel, that entitled her to relief from the state judgment.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case involves a trademark dispute between Rexel, Inc. and Rexel, S.A., who have used the "REXEL" mark for electrical supply distribution services since 1995 with federal registrations, and Rexel International Trading Corp., a distributor of consumer electronics and batteries that began using a similar "REXEL" design mark around 2004. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, and related claims after the Patent and Trademark Office refused the defendant's trademark applications due to likelihood of confusion. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendant's motion, finding a likelihood of confusion based on the similarity of the marks, the relatedness of the goods and services, overlapping trade channels, and the strength of the plaintiffs' marks. The decision relied on the plaintiffs' incontestable registrations and nationwide use in complementary electrical products distribution.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a dispute between credit card holder Benjamin Millan and issuer Chase Bank USA over outstanding debt, where Millan alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act, breach of contract, and due process, and sought to vacate an arbitration award in Chase's favor. The court granted Chase's motion to confirm the arbitration award and dismissed the complaint via summary judgment. The ruling was based on the finding that the original credit card agreement contained a valid arbitration clause under the Federal Arbitration Act, which Millan accepted by using the card, and that subsequent amendments were properly incorporated; Millan failed to show any basis to vacate the award, such as arbitrator bias, and his claims were governed by Delaware and federal law rather than state consumer protections.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerns the U.S. Navy's planned use of mid-frequency active sonar during large-scale training exercises off Southern California, which the Navy's own assessment indicated would cause tens of thousands of instances of harm to marine mammals. Environmental groups sued the Navy and related federal agencies, claiming violations of NEPA, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the APA for failing to prepare a full environmental impact statement and for inadequate consistency determinations with state coastal programs. On remand from the Ninth Circuit, the district court issues a preliminary injunction that allows the exercises to proceed but imposes specific mitigation conditions, including sonar power reductions at designated distances from marine mammals and enhanced monitoring requirements. The court reasoned that plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their NEPA and CZMA claims and that a narrowed injunction appropriately balanced the equities after rejecting both parties' more extreme proposals as impracticable.

environment

This case involved plaintiffs who operated a BitTorrent website suing the Motion Picture Association of America after a former associate hacked their email server, copied incoming and outgoing messages, and sold some documents to the MPAA for use in antipiracy efforts. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the federal Wiretap Act and California Invasion of Privacy Act through unlawful interception of communications, along with trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition under California law. The court granted the MPAA's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion. It held that the acquisition of the emails did not constitute an interception under the Wiretap Act because the messages were in electronic storage at the time, consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. The trade secrets claim failed because the plaintiffs did not identify the alleged secrets with sufficient particularity, and without an underlying violation the unfair competition claim also failed.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

The case involved environmental groups suing the U.S. Navy and related federal agencies over plans to conduct 14 large-scale training exercises using mid-frequency active sonar off southern California from 2007 to 2009, alleging that the Navy violated NEPA by not preparing an environmental impact statement, failed to account for sonar impacts in its coastal consistency determination under the CZMA, and breached other duties under the ESA and APA, resulting in hundreds of thousands of takes of marine mammals. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss or stay the action as duplicative of prior litigation. It granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in part as to the NEPA, CZMA, and APA claims, enjoining sonar use during the exercises, after finding a likelihood of success on the merits and a possibility of irreparable environmental harm that tipped the balance of hardships in plaintiffs' favor, but denied relief on the ESA claim.

environmentfederal powerprocedure