This case involved plaintiffs Jeffrey Herson and East Bay Outdoor, Inc. challenging the City of Richmond's denial of permits for large freestanding signs under both an old and a new sign ordinance, seeking damages and other relief on grounds including First Amendment violations and equal protection. The court granted the City's motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims under the old ordinance. It held that the ordinance's size and height limitations were constitutional as valid, content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions. Because the plaintiffs' proposed signs undisputedly exceeded those limits, the city could have denied the permits on that independent basis, meaning the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue damages and their claims were not redressable.
This case involved trusts established by members of the Martin family contesting IRS Notices of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment that reduced the tax basis in two limited liability companies for the years 2000 and 2001. The adjustments stemmed from complex options transactions and related transfers of cash and contingent liabilities into the partnerships, which the IRS determined improperly inflated the partners' bases and allowed large artificial losses. After a bench trial, the court denied the petition for readjustment, upholding the IRS determinations. The core reasoning was that the transactions lacked genuine economic substance or business purpose apart from tax avoidance, that the assumed liabilities were fixed and certain enough to reduce basis under IRC Section 752, and that the partnerships' characterizations of the deals were not supported by the evidence.
This case is a class action lawsuit brought by physically disabled California residents who use wheelchairs or scooters against Taco Bell Corp., alleging that architectural barriers at its corporate-owned restaurants violated Title III of the ADA, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act. After class certification, appointment of a special master for site surveys, and partial summary judgment rulings on certain barriers, the court held an exemplar trial on liability and injunctive relief for one restaurant (Taco Bell 4518), limiting claims to twelve specific elements including parking access aisles, door force and closing time, queue lines, dining tables, and restroom fixtures. The court found that multiple violations of federal and state standards existed during the class period, plaintiffs established standing and an intent to return, Taco Bell did not meet its burden on any defenses, and classwide injunctive relief to maintain compliance across California restaurants is warranted, with the exact form of injunction to be decided after pending class certification motions.
This case involves Oracle America, Inc. suing Micron Technology, Inc. for alleged violations of federal and state antitrust laws stemming from a DRAM price-fixing conspiracy that began in 2002. Oracle, as successor to Sun Microsystems, seeks treble damages and joint-and-several liability against Micron, which had entered a corporate leniency agreement with the Department of Justice. Micron asserted an affirmative defense under the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 (ACPERA), limiting its civil liability due to its cooperation. The court denied Oracle's motion to strike this defense, finding that ACPERA applies to the pre-enactment leniency agreement without impermissible retroactive effects on Oracle's post-enactment claims, consistent with congressional intent to incentivize cooperation while preserving victims' recovery from other conspirators.
The case concerns Frederick Schiff, a white male San Francisco police sergeant with over 25 years of service, who sued the City and County of San Francisco claiming that the 2005 Lieutenant promotional process and selections discriminated against white candidates and retaliated against him for prior complaints of reverse discrimination. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's motion. The court reasoned that Schiff's 2006 settlement agreement released all employment-related claims against the City through that date, that the certification rules and secondary criteria used for promotions from the eligible list were consistent with civil service rules and prior consent decrees aimed at addressing past underrepresentation, and that Schiff failed to produce evidence of discriminatory intent or adverse impact violating Title VII or equal protection principles.
This case involves a property owner, Gregory Village Partners, suing Chevron U.S.A., M B Enterprises, and the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District over alleged groundwater and soil contamination from chlorinated solvents and petroleum hydrocarbons originating from a former dry cleaner and gas station on nearby properties, with claims under CERCLA, RCRA, and state law theories including public nuisance, trespass, waste, negligence, and equitable indemnity. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, for a more definite statement, and to strike, dismissing the CERCLA, HSAA, equitable indemnity, and attorney's fees claims while allowing amendment on RCRA, nuisance, trespass, waste, and negligence claims. Dismissals were based on the plaintiff's failure to adequately plead elements such as a legal duty for negligence, timely discovery for statute of limitations purposes, and sufficient facts for certain federal and state causes of action, with some claims permitted to proceed or be revised.
