Dolly Maizie Gee

This case concerned Terrance Burnett's claims for short-term disability (STD) and long-term disability (LTD) benefits under Raytheon Company's self-funded ERISA plans, administered by MetLife, after his benefits were terminated following a back injury. The court found that MetLife abused its discretion in denying STD benefits beyond March 13, 2008, entitling Burnett to the full 10-week maximum benefit period from February 15 through April 25, 2008. It also ruled that Burnett was not required to exhaust administrative remedies for LTD benefits because doing so would have been futile, and the administrative record showed he met the plan's definition of full disability from April 26 through July 1, 2008, though the record was insufficient to determine eligibility beyond that date. The court therefore remanded the LTD claim to MetLife to calculate the amount and duration of benefits after July 1. The decisions rested on the plans' grant of discretionary authority to MetLife, review under the arbitrary and capricious standard, and the objective medical evidence in the record establishing Burnett's inability to perform his job duties.

labor & employment

This case is a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act alleging that Campbell-Ewald Co. sent unauthorized text message advertisements for the U.S. Navy to the plaintiff's cell phone and others without consent. After the defendant made an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment and settlement offer that it claimed fully satisfied the plaintiff's individual claims, it moved to dismiss the case as moot and opposed class certification. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that an unaccepted offer does not extinguish the claims and that class certification issues could still proceed, granted the plaintiff's motion to strike certain evidence submitted by the defendant, and deferred the class certification ruling until after the parties conduct class discovery.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves a dispute over long-term disability insurance benefits under a policy purchased in 1980 by plaintiff, an ophthalmologic surgeon, following a 1995 skiing accident that caused spinal injuries requiring surgery in 1996 and ongoing impairments limiting fine motor activities. Plaintiff submitted a 1997 claim for total disability benefits, which the policy defines differently for accidents (lifetime payments if commencing before age 65) versus sickness (payments only to age 65 or a minimum of 24 months), and defendants paid total disability benefits for over a decade before attempting to reclassify the claim. The court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on breach of contract and equitable estoppel. The core reasoning is that the undisputed facts showed defendants had actual notice of the accident-based total disability claim from the outset, paid benefits consistent with that classification without timely notifying plaintiff of or resolving any accident/sickness issue, and were therefore estopped from later denying coverage on that basis.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves mentally disabled non-citizens in immigration removal proceedings who filed a class action complaint alleging violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Due Process Clause, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, seeking competency evaluations, appointed counsel, and bond hearings while in detention. The district court addressed their motion for a preliminary injunction after procedural history that included habeas petitions, amended complaints adding plaintiffs, and a temporary restraining order. The court granted the motion in part, finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on claims that they were entitled to reasonable accommodations under the Rehabilitation Act for their mental disabilities in the immigration process. The reasoning focused on statutory and constitutional protections requiring evaluations and representation to ensure meaningful participation in proceedings, while rejecting authority under the Criminal Justice Act to appoint counsel for administrative immigration matters.

immigrationcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Progeny Ventures and Western Union over alleged obligations from a 1994 letter agreement and 1995 amendment, where Progeny was to recruit banks as agents for Western Union's money transfer services, particularly First Bank of Nigeria. Progeny claimed breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and sought declaratory relief when Western Union entered new agreements with the bank after prior ones expired. The court granted Western Union's motion for summary judgment, finding that the agreements explicitly limited Western Union's obligations to a specific timeframe ending August 16, 1995, after which it had no further liability to Progeny regarding listed banks, and Plaintiff failed to establish any ongoing contractual duty or basis for the other claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, Interplay Entertainment Corp. sued TopWare Interactive, Inc. for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and unfair competition under California law, alleging that TopWare's planned release of a fantasy-themed chess video game titled 'Battle v. Chess' infringed Interplay's registered 'Battle Chess' mark for similar games. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted Interplay's motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining TopWare from advertising, selling, or distributing games using the 'Battle Chess' mark or similar designations like 'Battle v. Chess,' and from related promotional activities. The court found that Interplay was likely to succeed on the merits due to its valid trademark registration, continuous use, and the likelihood of consumer confusion from the similar marks and game concepts; that Interplay would suffer irreparable harm without relief; that the balance of hardships favored Interplay; and that the injunction served the public interest in protecting trademarks from confusion. The injunction took effect upon posting of a $15,000 bond and applied to TopWare and related parties.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute between minority shareholders and a closely held family corporation, Orange County Nursery, Inc., where the minority sued for dissolution under California Corporations Code sections 1800 and 2000, prompting the corporation to elect a buyout of the minority's shares at a court-determined fair value of about $4.9 million plus interest, with a payment deadline or else dissolution. After failing to obtain a stay, the corporation filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and the Bankruptcy Court ruled that the minority held only an equity interest (not a claim) at the petition date, disallowed related expenses, and confirmed a plan treating them as equity holders with no recovery. The District Court reversed these decisions, finding that the state court decree created an allowable claim under bankruptcy law, that section 510(b) subordination did not apply to turn it into equity, and that other Code provisions like section 108(b) did not alter the outcome or bar enforcement of the dissolution remedy.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case arose from retired NFL player Jim Brown's lawsuit against Electronic Arts alleging unauthorized use of his likeness in the Madden NFL video game series, asserting a federal false endorsement claim under the Lanham Act along with state-law claims for invasion of privacy and unfair competition. After the court dismissed the Lanham Act claim on First Amendment grounds and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, EA moved for attorneys' fees on both the Lanham Act claim and its anti-SLAPP motion to strike the state claims. The court denied the Lanham Act fee motion because Brown's claim was neither groundless nor pursued vexatiously. It also denied the anti-SLAPP fee motion because EA was not a prevailing party, as the court had not ruled on the merits of the state claims but instead declined jurisdiction, leaving Brown free to refile them in state court.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a copyright infringement claim brought by Sofa Entertainment against Dodger Productions for using a seven-second clip from a 1966 episode of The Ed Sullivan Show in the musical Jersey Boys without obtaining a license. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. It held that the use qualified as fair use under copyright law. The core reasoning was that the brief clip was incorporated for a transformative purpose to depict a key historical moment in the Four Seasons' career, was not a substitute for the original work, and caused no cognizable market harm.

free speechproperty

The case involves Alonso Hernandez's federal habeas corpus petition challenging his state court convictions for offenses including attempted murder, firearm discharge in a school zone, assault with a deadly weapon, and domestic battery arising from incidents in March and July 2002. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the petition and dismissing the action with prejudice after finding no merit to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the joinder of incidents and failure to object to evidence of uncharged acts. The court reasoned that any such objections would have been overruled under California Evidence Code section 1101(b) and related precedents, as the evidence was admissible to prove intent or other non-propensity facts, and the California Supreme Court's denial of relief was not contrary to clearly established federal law. The court also denied a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves jewelry store owners who sued ADT Security Services after a burglary at their store, alleging that ADT failed to notify them or police of an alarm signal because it had incorrectly marked their account as out of service following installation of a cellular backup system. The plaintiffs brought claims for gross negligence, breach of contract, and conversion, seeking over $800,000 in damages plus punitive damages. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment on the negligence and contract claims as well as certain affirmative defenses. It granted the motions in part and denied them in part, finding triable issues on some elements of gross negligence and contract breach while enforcing contractual liability caps and dismissing other claims or defenses based on the evidence of ADT's account management and installation errors.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Lima v. Gateway, Inc., plaintiff Mark D. Lima filed a class action complaint on behalf of purchasers of the Gateway XHD3000 monitor, alleging that Gateway made false and misleading advertisements regarding the product's resolution, connectivity to multiple devices, durability, and performance capabilities in violation of the CLRA, FAL, and UCL. The defendant moved to dismiss the first amended complaint, contending that the claims lacked particularity under Rule 9(b) and that many statements constituted non-actionable puffery. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint sufficiently alleged the circumstances of the misrepresentations with particularity, that the advertising as a whole could deceive a reasonable consumer, and that the claims were adequately pled even where individual statements might be subjective.

business & regulatoryprocedure