Andrew J. Guilford

This case involves two women who sued the City of Fullerton and a police officer, alleging sexual harassment during their arrests by the officer, including inappropriate touching and propositions, along with the city's alleged failure to address prior similar complaints. The court considered the city's motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' eight claims (federal civil rights and state tort claims) and on punitive damages. The court denied summary judgment on all claims, finding triable issues regarding whether the city had prior knowledge of the officer's pattern of misconduct based on complaints from multiple women and failed to respond adequately, potentially indicating deliberate indifference or a custom of ignoring such issues. However, the court granted summary judgment on punitive damages because public entities cannot be held liable for them under applicable law.

civil rightstorts & liability

The case involved a dispute under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act between the Orange County Health Care Agency and parents of a special-needs student over whether the agency denied the student a free appropriate public education by failing to offer residential placement, following an administrative law judge's decision ordering reimbursement for one placement but not another. The agency filed a complaint seeking to reverse the ALJ ruling, and the parents responded with a late cross-appeal seeking additional reimbursement plus counterclaims under the Rehabilitation Act, Civil Rights Act, and Unruh Act. The court denied the agency's motion to dismiss the cross-appeal, reasoning that the IDEA permits parties to bring original civil actions in district court and introduce new evidence without being barred by res judicata. It granted the motion to dismiss the other counterclaims for failing to meet pleading standards but allowed leave to amend, and denied the parents' improperly filed request for leave to amend.

civil rightsprocedurefederal power

This case involves Filipino teachers who were recruited for H-1B visa teaching positions in U.S. schools and allege they were subjected to unexpected additional recruitment fees, threats of deportation, and other coercive practices by recruiters including defendants Navarro and UPI. The plaintiffs brought claims including RICO violations based on predicate acts of mail and wire fraud, forced labor, human trafficking, extortion, and violations of a California employment agency statute. The court granted the motion to dismiss as to the RICO claims predicated on mail and wire fraud but denied it as to the remaining claims. The core reasoning was that the initial recruitment contract was a voluntary exchange, but the later undisclosed fees combined with threats of financial loss and deportation plausibly stated claims for forced labor, trafficking, extortion, and related violations, while the fraud predicates lacked sufficient particularity.

immigrationcriminal lawlabor & employment

The case concerned a motion by defendants to stay a pending arbitration under a license agreement while a related patent infringement lawsuit proceeded in federal court. Plaintiff BioMagic had demanded arbitration for breach of the agreement's royalty provisions and later sued for patent infringement after a patent issued on its product. The court denied the motion, holding that the agreement's choice-of-law clause selecting California law did not demonstrate the parties' clear intent to apply the California Arbitration Act's section 1281.2(c) provision allowing a stay in cases of related litigation, instead leaving the Federal Arbitration Act to govern; the court further found that defendants had not satisfied the statute's requirements and declined to exercise any discretion to stay the arbitration.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which plaintiff Ian McCown alleged that police officers violated his constitutional rights by repeatedly tasering him, including in the genitals, while he was handcuffed on the ground. After most claims were dismissed on summary judgment, the remaining claim settled for $20,000 on the eve of trial, with the parties stipulating that McCown was the prevailing party entitled to seek attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The court granted the motion for fees and costs but reduced the requested $332,151 in fees to $148,250 (while awarding the full $15,034.10 in costs) after calculating reasonable hourly rates and hours, then making downward adjustments. The core reasoning applied Hensley v. Eckerhart to assess the relatedness of claims, the level of success obtained compared to the relief sought, the meaningful public benefit conferred, and reductions for unnecessary hours spent on acrimonious or procedural matters.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by California state prisoner Samuel B. Sanchez challenging his 2004 convictions for second-degree robbery and felon-in-possession of a firearm, along with related sentencing enhancements, following a jury trial in Riverside County Superior Court. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the petition in full and ordering dismissal with prejudice. The court found that Petitioner's claims, which included challenges to evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, ineffective assistance of counsel, and sentencing, failed to demonstrate that the state courts' decisions were contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), or involved an unreasonable determination of the facts. The opinion reviewed the procedural history of direct appeals and state habeas petitions, presumed the state appellate court's factual findings correct, and concluded that no evidentiary hearing was required as the record was sufficient.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a federal habeas corpus petition filed by a state prisoner convicted in Los Angeles Superior Court of first-degree murder, attempted murder, shooting at an inhabited dwelling, and conspiracy, who claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel. After an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge recommended granting the petition, and the district court adopted that recommendation, ordering a conditional writ of habeas corpus requiring retrial within sixty days or discharge from the conviction. The core reasoning was that counsel performed deficiently by failing to investigate and call available character witnesses and other potential exculpatory witnesses identified by the petitioner and his family, and that this deficiency prejudiced the outcome under Strickland v. Washington standards. The court found the witnesses would have provided admissible testimony without significant inconsistencies or risks that reasonably competent counsel would have avoided.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the Bureau of Prisons' calculation of when a prisoner's federal sentence began to run. The petitioner had been arrested in 1999 on state parole, later convicted in federal court in 2000 on related charges, and sentenced to 108 months in prison. The court reviewed records of custody transfers, writs, and administrative actions between state and federal authorities. It decided to grant relief in the form of a declaratory judgment that the federal sentence began running as a matter of law on August 2, 2000, the date the petitioner was administratively released from presentence custody at FCI Dublin and placed in BOP holdover status. The core reasoning was that this marked the point when the Bureau of Prisons assumed responsibility for the sentence, regardless of subsequent transfers or ambiguities in the record.

criminal law

The case involves plaintiff John Conder, who refinanced his home with an Option ARM loan from defendant Home Savings of America (HSA) in 2006, with Aurora Loan Services later serving as loan servicer; he alleged that the loan documents misrepresented the interest rate and payment application, leading to negative amortization, and asserted claims for TILA violations against HSA, breach of contract against both defendants, fraudulent omissions against HSA, and UCL violations against both. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in full. It dismissed the TILA claim against HSA with leave to amend due to the one-year statute of limitations, as the violation occurred at loan consummation and equitable tolling was not adequately pled. The breach of contract claim was dismissed without leave as to Aurora for failure to state a plausible claim, the fraudulent omissions claim against HSA was dismissed without leave on grounds of HOLA preemption, and the UCL claims against both were dismissed without leave because they depended entirely on the preempted or insufficient underlying claims.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

The case involves a former employee who sued her employers AT&T and Cingular, along with her California-based supervisor, in state court under California law for claims including wrongful termination, retaliation, harassment, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds, asserting that the supervisor was fraudulently joined as a sham defendant to defeat complete diversity. The court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand, finding that the supervisor was not a sham because the claims against her could potentially succeed and that broad joinder of defendants involved in the events is a common state-court pleading strategy rather than fraud. The court also awarded the plaintiff $2,653.80 in attorney fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The decision rested on the requirements of complete diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the strict construction of removal jurisdiction in favor of remand, and the conclusion that defendants failed to meet their burden to show fraudulent joinder.

procedurelabor & employment

This case involves allegations that Bird-B-Gone's New Bird Jolt product infringed Bird Barrier's patent for an electric bird deterrent device. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary adjudication, determining that the product does not infringe the patent. The core reasoning is that the patent claims require conductive elements made of at least three strands woven into a braid, but the defendant's product uses knitted tubes, which are a different manufacturing process that does not meet this limitation. Therefore, since the product lacks this claim element, there can be no infringement as a matter of law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a class action lawsuit brought by Elaheh Behrazfar against Unisys Corporation alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws on behalf of two subclasses of California employees. The defendant removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act asserting that the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million, prompting the plaintiff to file a motion to remand the case to state court. The court denied the motion to remand after determining that it was timely and that the defendant had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement was satisfied through conservative estimates of overtime hours and work weeks based on the complaint allegations and the plaintiff's deposition testimony.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves claims by sworn and unsworn sheriff's deputies against Riverside County under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime or regular compensation for pre- and post-shift activities, including donning and doffing uniforms and equipment and preparing patrol cars. The court ruled on four defense motions for partial summary judgment based on jury findings from an earlier trial phase about the time spent on these activities and the county's affirmative defenses. It granted the motion on the 29 U.S.C. § 207(k) exemption, granted in part and denied in part the motion on § 207(h)(2) offsets, granted the motion applying the de minimis doctrine to certain short-duration activities, and denied the motion on briefing start times because evidence was insufficient to resolve the issue at summary judgment.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned DealerTrack's assertion that Finance Express and RouteOne infringed its U.S. Patent 7,181,427, titled 'Automated Credit Application System,' which describes a computer-based method for receiving credit application data, selectively forwarding it to funding sources, and routing funding decisions. Defendants moved for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court granted the motion, holding that the patent claims fail the machine-or-transformation test established in In re Bilski because they are not tied to any particular machine. The claims recite only a general-purpose central processor and generic remote devices such as personal computers or dumb terminals, without specifying any special programming or transformation of an article. Claims 3 and 4 add steps for data aggregation or credit reports but likewise lack the required tie to a particular machine.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Michael Woods, a California state prisoner convicted in 2001 of arranging the 1989 murder of his former business partner. Woods claimed prosecutorial misconduct in the handling of a potential defense witness who invoked the Fifth Amendment after being offered a plea deal, along with related trial court error in permitting the witness to refuse testimony. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after de novo review, dismissing the petition with prejudice. The court reasoned that the prosecutor's actions did not constitute misconduct under Supreme Court precedents such as Valenzuela-Bernal, as they served legitimate purposes without improperly depriving the petitioner of material defense evidence.

criminal law

The case involved a class action by approximately 4,600 retired Orange County employees challenging the county's 2006 decision to discontinue 'pooling' retirees with active employees for health insurance rate-setting purposes, which had previously kept retiree premiums lower. Plaintiffs alleged breach of contract, promissory estoppel, due process violations under federal and state constitutions, impairment of contract, and violation of the California Pension Protection Act. The court granted the county's motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding no legal obligation to continue the pooling benefit. The core reasoning was that under the California Constitution and Government Code sections 25300 and 3505.1, the Board of Supervisors must explicitly approve compensation agreements to bind the county, and no such approval had occurred for lifetime pooling benefits, so retirees had no vested contractual or property rights.

labor & employmentcivil rightshealthcare

In this case, Experian Information Solutions, Inc. sued Lifelock, Inc. under California's Unfair Competition Law, alleging that Lifelock's practice of submitting fraud alert requests on behalf of consumers to credit reporting agencies like Experian constituted an unfair business practice. The court granted Experian's motion for partial summary judgment on this claim. The decision was based on the Fair Credit Reporting Act's requirement that fraud alerts be requested directly by consumers or their individual representatives, not by companies, as confirmed by the statute's legislative history, which establishes a public policy against such practices by entities like Lifelock. This policy violation rendered Lifelock's actions unfair under the UCL, and Experian demonstrated it incurred costs from processing these requests.

business & regulatory

In this federal habeas case, Victor Abeyta challenged his state conviction and sentence for assault with a firearm under California Penal Code section 245(a)(2), along with related enhancements including a gun-use finding under section 12022.5(a) that resulted in an upper-term sentence of ten years. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and granted the petition in part, ordering resentencing limited to the section 12022.5(a) enhancement. The core reasoning was that imposition of the upper term violated the Sixth Amendment under Cunningham v. California and Blakely v. Washington because it rested on aggravating facts not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and Abeyta had no prior convictions or admissions that could support the higher sentence.

criminal lawprocedureguns

This case involved a dispute over U.S. Patent 6,292,788, which describes a business method for creating 'deedshares' as investment instruments from real property to provide liquidity, income, and eligibility for tax-deferred treatment under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code. Plaintiff Fort Properties, a real estate company, filed suit seeking a declaration of non-infringement, and Defendant American Master Lease counterclaimed for infringement. The court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the patent's 41 method claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The core reasoning was that the claims fail the machine-or-transformation test from In re Bilski, as they are not tied to any particular machine and do not transform any article or thing into a different state, but instead involve only abstract arrangements of legal rights in property.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretaxes

The NAACP sued numerous mortgage lenders alleging that their lending policies and practices had a discriminatory disparate impact on African-American borrowers, who were substantially more likely than similarly situated Caucasian borrowers to receive higher-rate residential mortgage loans, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and Civil Rights Act. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The court denied the motion, holding that the NAACP had sufficiently alleged organizational standing based on concrete injuries to its mission, resources, and members; that the statutes authorize disparate impact claims; and that the ECOA and FHA provide alternative rather than mutually exclusive remedies.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatoryprocedure