Warren John Ferguson

The case concerned a dispute between AmerisourceBergen Corporation and its former executive Donald Roden over an employment agreement, including entitlement to benefits under an ERISA-governed retirement plan and repayment terms for a company loan, with related claims already pending in California state court. After the state court issued orders on benefits and loan timing, the company filed a federal diversity action seeking damages for breach of contract on the loan and declaratory relief on the proper calculation of retirement benefits. The district court dismissed the federal suit under the Younger abstention doctrine to avoid interfering with the ongoing state proceedings. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that abstention was not required because the federal claims were not duplicative of the state action, did not seek to enjoin state proceedings, and could proceed without undermining principles of comity or judicial economy.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether a California minute order, combined with a charging document, could establish that Michael Snellenberger's 1991 nolo contendere plea to burglary under Cal. Penal Code § 459 qualified as "burglary of a dwelling" for purposes of the career-offender sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. §§ 4B1.1 and 4B1.2. The district court had relied on those documents to treat the prior conviction as a crime of violence, raising Snellenberger's advisory guideline range. The Ninth Circuit held that minute orders are not judicial records that may be consulted under Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (2005), to determine the elements of a prior conviction via the modified categorical approach. The court therefore vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, rejecting the government's argument that minute orders should be treated like abstracts of judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved copyright owners Universal and Disney suing Sony, retailers, and an individual user over the Betamax VCR's ability to record copyrighted audiovisual broadcasts off public airwaves for later home viewing. The district court decided that neither the 1909 nor 1976 Copyright Act granted authors monopoly rights over private, non-commercial off-the-air home copying by individuals, so no infringement occurred and the corporate defendants bore no direct, contributory, or vicarious liability. The core reasoning emphasized the constitutional balance in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 between incentivizing creative work through limited exclusive rights and ensuring broad public availability of arts and literature, concluding that Congress had not extended protection to this personal use. The court further found no unfair competition or interference with business relations, and noted that injunctive relief would be unavailable even if infringement had been established.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In Doe v. Gallinot, the plaintiff challenged provisions of California's Lanterman-Petris-Short Act governing involuntary civil commitment to mental institutions, claiming that the 'gravely disabled' standard was unconstitutionally vague and that the statutory process for 14-day certification lacked adequate due process protections. The court denied summary judgment on the vagueness claim but granted it on the due process claim, holding that the ex parte certification process without prompt judicial review violated constitutional requirements. The opinion reasoned that after the initial 72-hour emergency detention, due process mandates an independent probable cause hearing—conducted by someone outside the treating facility—within at most seven days to assess whether continued confinement is justified, emphasizing the need to minimize the risk of erroneous deprivation of liberty even when commitment is motivated by benevolent purposes. The court directed state officials to propose a plan implementing such review rather than specifying exact procedures itself.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves a class action by conservatees and wards of the public guardian seeking a declaratory judgment that they are entitled to care in the least restrictive settings, an injunction against certain placement practices by the public guardian, and damages for alleged violations of state statutory duties and constitutional rights. The defendants moved for abstention from federal jurisdiction. The court granted abstention, holding that federal intervention would improperly interfere with the continuing jurisdiction of state probate courts over conservatorships and guardianships under the Younger doctrine, given the state's important interests in such proceedings. Abstention was also warranted under the Pullman doctrine because unsettled questions of state law regarding guardians' duties could resolve the federal constitutional claims without federal court involvement. The court reserved jurisdiction over any remaining federal issues after state adjudication.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

Plaintiffs Arthur W. Carlsberg and related entities sued two SEC attorneys, alleging that the defendants intentionally violated their constitutional rights by actions taken during an investigation and civil enforcement action against a third-party company, Pre-Builder Land Corporation, including filing complaints, seeking injunctions without notice, making false statements, and advising others to stop payments on notes held by plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also asserted pendent state tort claims for abuse of process and interference with contractual relations. The court granted summary judgment to defendant Gatzek on all claims, treating the motion as one for summary judgment after considering matters outside the pleadings. The core reasoning was that the defendant, as a federal government attorney in a civil securities enforcement action, enjoyed absolute immunity from personal liability for acts integral to the judicial process under precedents like Bivens, Imbler, and Flood, which applied even to claims by non-parties incidentally affected; the court also found no due process violation from authorized SEC public announcements.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Control Components, Inc., an exclusive licensee of a patent owned by Richard E. Self, against Atlantic Richfield Co. and other defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, arguing that the patent owner was an indispensable party who must be joined. The court held that Self was a necessary party because patent law requires the owner to be named in infringement suits by licensees, the agreement did not clearly effect an assignment, and there was a risk of multiple litigation. However, the court denied dismissal and instead ordered the plaintiff to join Self as a party within thirty days, either as a plaintiff or as a defendant if he refuses to join voluntarily.

procedureproperty

This case involved a motion to dismiss two counts of a complaint brought by movie studios against Sony and retailers over the marketing of the Betamax videotape recorder. The studios alleged that the defendants violated § 43(a) of the Lanham Act by failing to inform consumers that recording copyrighted television programs constituted copyright infringement, thereby misleading the public into believing such copying was legal or authorized. The court granted the motion and dismissed the claims, holding that the statute prohibits only affirmative false descriptions or representations and does not impose liability for mere omissions or failures to disclose information about potential legal risks. The advertisements at issue did not create any false implication of consent or legality that would trigger liability under the provision.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a defendant's motion to suppress evidence in a federal prosecution for attempted tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201. The defendant argued that the investigation stemmed from information obtained via an illegal search by a government informant and a warrantless mail cover on his mail. The court determined that the informant's activities did not significantly taint the evidence, but found that the mail cover failed to comply with postal regulations requiring specific reasonable grounds and violated the Fourth Amendment by intruding on an expectation of privacy in mailed communications. Because the mail cover illegality tainted the entire investigation, the court granted the motion to suppress.

criminal lawtaxesprocedure

The case concerned challenges by writers, directors, actors, and producers to the FCC's role in establishing the "family viewing policy," under which networks and the National Association of Broadcasters agreed to restrict prime-time entertainment programming deemed inappropriate for a general family audience. The court found that the FCC had violated the First Amendment, section 326 of the Communications Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act by pressuring the networks and NAB to adopt the policy through closed-door negotiations without providing public notice or opportunity to be heard. It held that individual broadcast licensees retain the independent right and duty to make programming decisions, and that the government may not censor or coerce such decisions informally. The court rejected the defendants' motions to dismiss and indicated that remedies would be crafted to prevent improper government or industry interference while allowing the policy to continue only if chosen independently by licensees.

free speechfederal powerbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the Church of Scientology filing a Freedom of Information Act suit against the Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Administration to obtain documents that included information supplied by foreign, state, and local law enforcement agencies. The court ruled that the defendants properly withheld the fifteen fully withheld documents and portions of nine others under the (b)(7)(D) exemption for records compiled for law enforcement purposes that were furnished by confidential sources. The core reasoning rested on witness testimony establishing that such agencies share information only with the understanding it will remain confidential and would cease cooperation if FOIA required disclosure, making the exemption applicable irrespective of the plaintiff's lack of involvement in drug trafficking.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

This case was a class action lawsuit brought by Mexican-American plaintiffs and LULAC against the City of Santa Ana and its officials, alleging that the city's recruitment practices, use of certain mental aptitude and fire aptitude tests, height requirements, and high school education requirements for police officer and firefighter positions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related civil rights statutes by disproportionately excluding Mexican-Americans. The court found that while the city had acted in good faith and developed some innovative personnel policies, its hiring procedures improperly operated to exclude Mexican-Americans from these positions due to a misunderstanding of Title VII requirements and EEOC guidelines. The decision rested on statistical evidence of underrepresentation (Mexican-Americans comprising 25.8% of the population but only 9.2% of police and 4.5% of firefighters), combined with findings that the challenged selection devices lacked sufficient validation as job-related and were not justified by business necessity. The court rejected the city's proposed use of county labor force statistics as the relevant comparison and indicated that remedies, including potential hiring orders, would follow at a later stage.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved a divorce proceeding in California state court where the wife sought to include her husband's pension trust as a party to enforce her community property rights in his vested but unmatured pension benefits. The pension trust petitioned to remove the case to federal district court, arguing that ERISA provided federal jurisdiction and preempted state community property laws regarding pensions. The court remanded the case to state court, holding that the claim against the trust was not a separate and independent cause of action from the dissolution proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c), as it involved the same primary right to pension benefits. The court further reasoned that ERISA did not grant federal courts concurrent jurisdiction over family law matters or invalidate state community property rules in this context.

family lawfederal powerprocedure

In Priebe v. World Ventures, Inc., the plaintiff moved to compel the defendants, including the corporation World Ventures and three individuals, to answer questions during oral depositions and written interrogatories in a civil action alleging federal and state securities violations. The individual defendants refused to answer, asserting their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination on the grounds that the allegations could support criminal liability, while the corporation conceded it had no such privilege. The court denied the motion to compel as to the individual defendants but granted it as to the corporation, reasoning that the privilege applies in civil proceedings when there is a real and appreciable risk of self-incrimination and that, in this case, any discoverable questions inherently carried such a risk due to the overlap with potential criminal charges. The court noted that the corporation must appoint an agent to respond without invoking the privilege and observed that a blanket refusal was appropriate here unlike in cases where no such risk existed for every question.

procedurecriminal lawcivil rights

The case concerns plaintiffs Lester and Brenda McDowell suing Union Mutual Life Insurance Company and Crown Life Insurance Company for denying coverage of over $29,300 in medical expenses incurred in 1971-1972 under successive group health insurance policies tied to Lester McDowell's employment and union membership. The complaint sought declaratory relief on which insurer was liable, plus contract damages, bad faith refusal to pay, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and fraud, including extra-contractual, punitive, and emotional distress damages. The court allowed the declaratory relief claim to proceed but granted the defendants' motions to dismiss or strike most other claims, ruling that California Civil Code section 3302 limits breach-of-contract damages to the policy amount plus interest, that statutes of limitations bar the tort and certain fraud claims, and that punitive damages and emotional distress recovery are unavailable on the pleaded theories.

business & regulatoryhealthcaretorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved the prosecution of attorney Frank DeMarco Jr. for alleged false statements to the IRS and other agencies investigating former President Nixon's 1969 charitable contribution of papers, under charges including violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 1505. DeMarco moved to dismiss based on prosecutorial misconduct, including improper threats regarding venue, failure to disclose exculpatory material as required by Brady v. Maryland, and presentation of testimony that created a misleading impression about DeMarco's admissions of intent. The court granted the motion and dismissed the charges, reasoning that the government's nondisclosure of notes and other materials violated due process by undermining the defendant's ability to challenge the prosecution's evidence on scienter. This outcome followed an earlier related dismissal and was grounded in the need for fair administration of justice in criminal proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned Frank DeMarco, Jr., who faced an indictment in the Central District of California for making false statements to an IRS agent under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, stemming from his involvement in the preparation of President Nixon’s 1969 tax return and related deductions. DeMarco had previously been indicted in the District of Columbia on conspiracy, false statements, and obstruction charges, and successfully moved under 18 U.S.C. § 3237(b) to transfer venue to his home district in California. The government had indicated it would add charges if the transfer occurred. The court granted DeMarco’s motion to dismiss the California indictment. It held that dismissal was required both because the government’s actions created an impermissible potential for vindictiveness that could deter defendants from exercising statutory venue rights, in violation of due process, and because the prosecutor failed to present the grand jury with relevant facts about the prior proceedings, undermining the grand jury’s independence.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, a bank sought reimbursement from the United States for $2,545.28 in costs incurred while complying with an IRS summons demanding production of customer transaction records for a tax investigation. The court had previously ordered immediate compliance and retained jurisdiction to address the reimbursement request afterward. The government argued that such expenses were routine costs of doing business that banks should bear without reimbursement, while the bank contended the amount was unreasonable for a third party to absorb. The court ruled in favor of the bank, holding that when a summons is legitimate and narrow in scope, the government must reimburse actual costs beyond nominal amounts because the statute is silent on reimbursement and the Due Process Clause precludes imposing unpredictable, unequal burdens on innocent third parties aiding investigations of others. The decision also outlined a procedural approach separating pre-compliance challenges to summons scope from post-compliance reimbursement motions to balance efficient government access with third-party rights.

taxesfederal powerprocedure

The case concerned whether California's obscenity statutes, as interpreted by state courts, satisfied the constitutional requirements for regulating obscene materials set forth in Miller v. California. Plaintiffs, operators of a theater exhibiting the film 'Deep Throat,' challenged repeated seizures of film copies and cash by police under search warrants issued without full judicial viewing in some instances. The court held that the statutes failed to meet Miller's standards. Its reasoning centered on the statutes' definitions of obscenity and related terms, which did not adequately incorporate requirements such as a lack of serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, or precise community standards for determining prurient interest and patent offensiveness.

free speechcriminal law

This case involved a federal prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus after his scheduled parole release date was rescinded based on confidential information alleging narcotics trafficking while on a work detail. The petitioner had been granted parole effective October 15, 1973, but the Bureau of Prisons and Parole Board revoked the date without providing a hearing, the right to confront accusers, or the assistance of counsel, relying instead on incident reports and investigative findings. The court held that the prisoner's interest in his future liberty created by the parole release date constituted a substantial liberty interest requiring due process protections similar to those in parole revocation proceedings under Morrissey v. Brewer. It reasoned that the factual determination of rule violations demanded fair procedures, including counsel, to avoid grievous loss, though it distinguished this from internal prison discipline decisions like transfers. The court ordered the petitioner released on parole unless provided a compliant hearing within 30 days.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights