Philip S. Gutierrez

The case concerned royalty payments owed to F.B.T. Productions under recording agreements with Aftermath Records for Eminem's master recordings, specifically whether permanent digital downloads and mastertones should be compensated at the lower rate for "records sold" or the higher 50% of net receipts rate for "masters licensed" to third parties. Plaintiffs sought summary judgment applying the higher rate across the board, while defendants argued most distributions qualified as records sold and moved for partial summary judgment on contract interpretation issues. The court denied plaintiffs' motion in full and granted defendants' motion in part, holding that certain albums constituted side projects subject to the masters licensed provision, that "net receipts" means gross licensing revenue minus mechanical royalties and distribution fees, and that new medium and container charge deductions do not apply to the licensed masters clause. Core reasoning rested on the plain language of the 1998, 2003, and related agreements defining records versus licensed masters and specifying allowable deductions.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case concerns a consolidated CERCLA and RCRA action filed by the City of Rialto against Whittaker Corporation and others alleging perchlorate and TCE contamination of groundwater and soil stemming from historical military, fireworks, and explosives activities at the former Rialto Ammunition Storage Point. Whittaker moved for partial summary judgment on Rialto’s RCRA claim for injunctive relief, arguing that the EPA was already diligently prosecuting related actions, that any court-ordered relief would be duplicative of existing orders, and that Rialto’s RCRA notice was inadequate or rendered stale by delay. The court denied the motion, holding that Whittaker had not carried its burden to demonstrate EPA diligence as to the relevant western plume, that RCRA authorizes broader injunctive relief than existing administrative measures, and that the 2003 notice remained valid with no lack of diligence or prejudice supporting a laches defense.

environmentprocedure

This case involves eight homeless individuals living in Los Angeles's Skid Row who sued the City, claiming that LAPD and other officials seized and immediately destroyed their personal property left temporarily unattended in public spaces, in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments as well as state law provisions on property and due process. After previously issuing a temporary restraining order, the district court grants plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. The court concludes that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits because the property was not abandoned, the seizures were unreasonable, and no pre-deprivation notice or hearing was provided; it further finds irreparable harm, that the balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiffs' favor, and that the public interest supports injunctive relief.

civil rightsproperty

This case is a shareholder derivative action by Bidz.com shareholders against the company and its directors and officers, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, insider selling, waste, and unjust enrichment based on the board's alleged failure to oversee or stop practices including shill bidding, inflated appraisals, inaccurate product descriptions, and sales of counterfeit items, which led to misleading statements and a stock price drop after public reports. The court granted the nominal defendant's motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 23.1, rendering the individual defendants' motion moot. The core reasoning was that plaintiffs neither made a pre-suit demand on the board nor pleaded particularized facts showing demand futility, as general allegations of board knowledge, audit committee membership, or bad faith were insufficient to overcome the presumption that directors acted faithfully.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this bankruptcy appeal, debtor Kang Jin Hwang defaulted on a mortgage note secured by real property and filed a Chapter 7 petition that triggered an automatic stay blocking foreclosure. IndyMac Bank, which held the note and had been assigned the deed of trust, moved for relief from the stay to proceed against the property; after the FDIC later substituted in, the bankruptcy court denied the motion. It ruled that IndyMac was not the real party in interest under Rule 17 and that the note's unidentified owner had to be joined under Rule 19. The district court reversed, concluding that IndyMac, as the note's physical holder entitled to enforce it under California law, was the real party in interest and that the owner was not a necessary party under Rule 19 because its interests would not be impaired by its absence from the motion. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the motion.

procedureproperty

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Brian McGee, who was convicted in California state court of first-degree murder and attempted murder and sentenced to life without parole. The petition claimed that the prosecution violated Batson v. Kentucky and related state law by using peremptory challenges to exclude African-American prospective jurors on the basis of race. After reviewing the state court record de novo under AEDPA standards, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings that the prosecutor's stated reasons for the strikes were pretextual and inconsistent with the treatment of similarly situated non-African-American jurors. The court therefore granted the petition and ordered the state to release McGee unless it grants him a new trial within 120 days.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by California state prisoner Larry B. Moore challenging his 2000 convictions for petty theft with a prior conviction and possession of heroin. After earlier partial dismissal of unexhausted and non-cognizable claims, the district court reviewed the remaining grounds in the First Amended Petition along with objections and a procedurally improper summary judgment motion seeking to add new claims. The court declined to consider belated new claims, treated relevant arguments as objections, and adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full. It denied the petition on the merits and dismissed the action with prejudice, finding no basis for relief in the state court record or proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. suing multiple defendants, including Sunglass Experts, Mirage Eyewear, and David Hsu, for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and related claims under federal and state law after discovering sunglasses bearing reproductions of Coach's registered "CC Design" mark. The court granted in part and denied in part Coach's motion for summary adjudication on its trademark infringement claim against Sunglass Experts, granted Sunglass Experts' motion for summary judgment on compensatory damages, and granted Mirage and Hsu's motion for summary judgment of no liability. These rulings rested on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 standards requiring no genuine issues of material fact, interpretations of Coach's trademark registrations that did not cover sunglasses as separate products, and insufficient evidence of liability or willfulness for damages against certain defendants.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Ayala v. World Savings Bank, FSB, the plaintiffs alleged that a 2005 refinancing loan and home equity line of credit they received from World Savings Bank featured negative amortization and payment options that exceeded their income, leading to default and foreclosure on their Oxnard property by Wachovia in 2008. The defendants moved to dismiss the ten-count complaint under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6) and to expunge the lis pendens recorded by the plaintiffs. The court granted the motions in full, dismissing the majority of claims with prejudice on grounds including federal preemption under the Home Owners' Loan Act for federal thrifts, failure to plead fraud with particularity, and lack of a cognizable legal duty, while permitting limited amendment of three claims; it also expunged the lis pendens and awarded attorney fees.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a motion by Televisa in its litigation against Univision to admit the expert report and deposition testimony of Jeffrey Neuburger, who had been designated as a custom and usage expert on a programming license agreement but became unavailable after joining a law firm that represents Univision. The court granted the motion, finding Neuburger unavailable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32 and that his testimony and report were admissible under the residual hearsay exception of Federal Rule of Evidence 807. The court reasoned that no ethical conflict existed because Neuburger's new firm had not obtained relevant confidential information from its unrelated employee benefits work for Univision, consistent with precedent like Commonwealth Ins. Co. v. Stone Container Corp., and that the report and deposition provided sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness given Univision's prior opportunity for cross-examination.

procedure

This case was a proposed class action by several health benefit plans and funds against Amgen and two dialysis providers, alleging that the defendants ran schemes to unlawfully promote Epogen and Aranesp for off-label uses, including through press releases, funded educational programs, and volume-based contracts that encouraged dangerously high hemoglobin levels, in violation of RICO and state consumer fraud laws. The court dismissed the complaint in full but granted leave to amend. The core reasoning was that claims based solely on allegations of illegal off-label promotion amount to an impermissible private enforcement action under the FDCA, which provides no private right of action, whereas claims resting on specific literally false, misleading, or materially omitted statements could be actionable under RICO and state law; because the existing complaint intertwined the two types of allegations without the particularity required by Rule 9(b), dismissal was required.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

This case involved 25 members of Peru's Achuar indigenous group and the environmental organization Amazon Watch suing U.S.-based Occidental Petroleum and its subsidiary for negligence, strict liability, trespass, nuisance, and other claims arising from alleged contamination of water, soil, and wildlife in Peru's Block 1-AB oil operations between the 1970s and 2000, which plaintiffs said caused health harms. The district court denied the plaintiffs' request for limited discovery on forum issues and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. The court reasoned that Peru was an adequate alternative forum with greater interest in the dispute, that most evidence and witnesses were located there, that the private and public interest factors weighed strongly in favor of Peru, and that only limited deference was due to the plaintiffs' choice of a California forum given that the individual plaintiffs were foreign residents. It did not reach the defendants' alternative international comity argument or the separate motion targeting Amazon Watch's claims.

environmentproceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a consumer suing a debt purchasing company under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California's Rosenthal Act, alleging that the defendant filed a state court collection action on an old credit card debt without obtaining or intending to obtain admissible evidence of the debt's existence, amount, or ownership, as part of a broader pattern of filing such suits. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint and for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that filing suit without evidence does not violate the FDCPA and that litigation privilege barred the claims. The court denied both motions, finding that the plaintiff had stated a viable claim based on the alleged pattern and practice of filing suits without intent or ability to prove them at trial, which the defendant failed to address, and rejecting the litigation privilege argument for lack of controlling authority.

business & regulatory

In Mello v. Great Seneca Financial Corp., plaintiff Jim Mello sued defendant Great Seneca Financial Corp. for attempting to collect on a time-barred debt by filing a state court action, asserting violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California's Rosenthal Act. The defendant moved to strike the state law claim under California's anti-SLAPP statute, contending that the suit implicated protected petitioning activity and was barred by the litigation privilege. The court denied the motion, determining that Mello showed at least a minimal probability of success on the Rosenthal Act claim depending on when the debt defaulted and that the specific consumer protection statute prevails over the general litigation privilege.

business & regulatoryfree speechprocedure

Cyntegra sued Idexx for alleged antitrust violations under the Sherman and Clayton Acts, claiming exclusive dealing arrangements with distributors, monopolization and attempted monopolization of the veterinary diagnostic products market, and illegal tying of FIV and FeLV tests, plus related California claims for unfair competition and interference with contractual and prospective business relations. The district court granted Idexx's motion for summary judgment on all eight counts and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court reasoned that the relevant market encompassed both in-clinic tests and reference laboratory services, Idexx's share was below 40 percent with no evidence of monopoly power or anticompetitive effects, no actual tying or coercion was shown, and the state claims failed for lack of underlying violations or damages.

business & regulatory

The case is a shareholder derivative action filed in California state court by a New York plaintiff against directors of Powerwave Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in California, alleging state-law claims including breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and violations of the California Corporations Code. One defendant removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds, prompting the plaintiff's motion to remand on the ground that the forum defendant Powerwave had been properly joined and served before removal in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). The court denied the motion, holding that substituted service on Powerwave's agent was not complete until ten days after mailing under California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(a) and therefore had not occurred by the removal date. Because the local defendant was not "properly joined and served" when removal was effected, the forum-defendant rule did not bar federal jurisdiction.

procedure