Phyllis Jean Hamilton

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.

free speechcivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

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.

taxes

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.

civil rightsprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

civil rightslabor & employment

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.

environmentpropertyproceduretorts & liability

In Rodriguez v. Adams, a state prisoner petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after his conviction for second-degree murder with firearm use and a sentence of 40 years to life in California state court. The court granted the petition and vacated the conviction, holding that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to introduce or attempt to introduce a witness's preliminary hearing testimony establishing that a robbery had occurred before the shooting. The core reasoning was that this evidence was critical to support the defense theory regarding the defendant's state of mind and possession of the gun, the prosecution had affirmatively argued the absence of any robbery, and counsel had no valid strategic reason for the omission, satisfying the deficient performance and prejudice prongs of Strickland v. Washington.

criminal law

This case involves employment discrimination claims brought by MaryBeth Pascale, an employee of the County of Marin Probation Department, against the county and her supervisors. Pascale alleged age discrimination, association discrimination, retaliation, harassment, failure to prevent discrimination, and a First Amendment violation under federal and state laws including the ADEA, FEHA, and Title VII, stemming from conflicts with her supervisor over coworker issues, missed meetings, tardiness, and internal complaints. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that Pascale failed to show any adverse employment action, provided no evidence linking any actions to discriminatory or retaliatory motives, and that her speech did not address a matter of public concern as required for First Amendment protection.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfree speech

In Claridge v. RockYou, Inc., the plaintiff alleged that the defendant, a developer of online applications for social networking sites, failed to adequately protect users' personally identifiable information such as email addresses and passwords, which were stored in plain text and exposed through an unpatched SQL injection vulnerability that allowed unauthorized access by hackers. The court addressed the defendant's motion to dismiss multiple causes of action, including breach of contract, fraud, negligence, and violations of consumer protection and privacy statutes under California law. It granted the motion in part by dismissing several claims with prejudice due to insufficient pleading of cognizable injury or other required elements, while denying dismissal of the negligence and negligence per se claims on the grounds that the unauthorized disclosure of PII could constitute an actual injury. The court also granted leave to amend the Stored Communications Act claim, finding it potentially viable as a basis for negligence per se.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case arose from disputes over a joint venture between VIA Technologies and SONICBlue, Inc., including accounting issues and claims filed in SONICBlue's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, where VIA asserted proofs of claim totaling over $100 million. After settlements and plan confirmation, SBC (as successor to certain creditor interests) filed counterclaims against VIA alleging that VIA's assertion of attorney-client privilege hindered SBC's efforts to maximize the value of an allowed claim. The court granted VIA's motion to dismiss the second amended counterclaim without leave to amend, concluding that SBC failed to show causation between VIA's privilege assertions and any damages, and that post-confirmation events rendered further claims moot. It denied the summary judgment motions filed by SBC and the other defendants.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This ERISA case involved plaintiff Lena Monzon Ramos, a former Bank of America employee, who sought long-term disability benefits under the bank's plan after receiving short-term disability benefits for a claimed inability to work due to illness. Defendants Bank of America and MetLife, the plan administrator and insurer, denied the LTD claim for lack of sufficient medical proof of disability as required by the plan terms. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiff's cross-motion, applying an arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review based on the plan's grant of discretionary authority to MetLife. The core reasoning was that plaintiff failed to submit adequate documentation despite multiple opportunities, MetLife reasonably exercised its discretion in denying benefits, and there were no ERISA procedural violations supporting additional claims or penalties.

labor & employment

This case concerns consolidated appeals from bankruptcy court orders in the Chapter 11 case of debtor Michael H. Clement Corporation involving real property at 3500 Wilbur Avenue in Antioch, California. The Alegres moved to deem a lease rejected under Bankruptcy Code § 365(d)(4) on grounds that the debtor failed to assume it within 120 days of filing, while the debtor opposed and both sides later sought reconsideration of the denial. The bankruptcy court denied the motion after finding that title had transferred but the parties' agreements created ongoing occupancy rights tied to another property development, and it also denied the reconsideration motions. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's orders in full, concluding that disputes over lease classification did not change the result.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves the United States seeking to hold the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) liable under a 1938 permit for environmental damage to Mountain Lake in the Presidio of San Francisco caused by contaminated runoff from Park Presidio Boulevard, as well as for repairs to an overflow pipeline system. The permit, granted by the Secretary of War to allow construction and maintenance of the highway on federal land, included conditions requiring CalTrans to bear all costs, make necessary changes or repairs without expense to the United States, and handle drainage facilities as directed. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted the United States' motion in large part and CalTrans' motion in part, finding CalTrans obligated under the permit's provisions for repairs and indemnification related to the highway's operation and maintenance, with one limited exception on an indemnification claim. The core reasoning centered on the undisputed facts of the permit's terms and the parties' historical responsibilities for the infrastructure installed by the State.

environmentfederal powerproperty

The case involves plaintiff Nathaniel Holmes, an African-American employee terminated by defendant Tenderloin Housing Clinic (THC) in 2008 after a series of workplace incidents, warnings, grievances, and disputes over promotions and conduct, with claims of race discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and related issues against THC, its managers, and the union SEIU Local 1021 under a collective bargaining agreement. The court granted the union's motion for summary judgment in full and the THC defendants' motion in part, while denying it in part, including on certain reinstatement arguments. It granted summary judgment on age discrimination claims as unopposed, found no triable issues on some other claims based on the record of performance issues and investigations, but allowed parts of the race-related claims to proceed. The core reasoning centered on the lack of evidence supporting certain allegations, the validity of THC's disciplinary actions under its policies, and the union's non-involvement in disputed materials, while preserving equitable issues like post-termination hostility for trial.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case is a securities class action by purchasers of Bare Escentuals common stock against the company, its executives and directors, and underwriters, alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on false or misleading statements in IPO and follow-on offering registration statements and prospectuses about the company's multi-channel distribution model, compliance with QVC exclusivity agreements, brand image, and sales growth. The court granted in part and denied in part the individual defendants' motion to dismiss, denied the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss in full, and granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion to strike. The decision turned on application of pleading standards for falsity and scienter under the securities laws, finding some allegations sufficient to state claims while dismissing others for lack of particularity or other deficiencies.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves Oracle suing SAP and its subsidiaries for copyright infringement of software registrations, violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and California Data Access and Fraud Act, breach of contract, and related state claims arising from unauthorized access and use of Oracle's PeopleSoft, J.D. Edwards, and Siebel software. The court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on direct copyright infringement by SAP TN for six specific registrations, vicarious infringement by SAP AG and SAP America, and SAP TN's liability under certain CFAA and CDAFA provisions, based on defendants' concessions. It denied summary judgment on contributory infringement, indirect liability for the statutes, and certain other claims, while granting defendants' motions to dismiss OEMEA's California claims, bar damages for non-parties and saved development costs, and limit recovery where damage calculations were not disclosed. The rulings applied the summary judgment standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, finding no genuine issues of material fact on conceded issues and resolving damages measures as a matter of law.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatorycriminal law

This case involves a dispute between homeowners who filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and their mortgage lender and servicer over foreclosure proceedings on their residence, including claims of improper payment resets, violations of the automatic stay, and negotiations to modify the loan and settle related adversary proceedings. The bankruptcy court enforced an alleged settlement agreement between the parties and imposed sanctions on the banks for failing to appear at hearings and for misleading statements. On appeal, the district court reversed both orders and remanded for further proceedings, holding that there was no enforceable settlement due to the absence of a meeting of the minds on material terms and that the banks had not been given adequate notice and opportunity to be heard regarding the specific grounds for sanctions. The court noted that any sanctions based on judicial resource waste or misrepresentations would require separate consideration independent of settlement consummation.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a dispute between employee Charles Martorello and insurer Sun Life Assurance Company over the calculation of partial disability benefits under an ERISA-governed insurance policy. The central issue was whether bonuses should be included in the definition of "disability earnings," which determines benefit amounts by comparison to the employee's indexed total monthly earnings. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff and denied the defendant's motion, holding that the policy language was ambiguous on this point. The court reasoned that Ninth Circuit precedent requires construing ambiguities in insurance policies in favor of the insured employee, so bonuses could not be included in the disability earnings calculation.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Craigslist, Inc. v. Naturemarket, Inc., the plaintiff sued defendants for operating an automated posting service that used software to bypass Craigslist's security measures like CAPTCHAs, post ads without manual entry, scrape data, and violate the site's terms of use, leading to claims under the DMCA, CFAA, copyright infringement, and breach of contract. The court granted default judgment in favor of Craigslist on all claims after defendants failed to respond or object. It issued a broad permanent injunction barring defendants from any automated access, posting, or circumvention activities related to the Craigslist site, awarded $470,000 in statutory damages under the DMCA and $840,000 in liquidated damages under the terms of use, plus attorneys' fees and costs, while denying punitive damages. The decision adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, finding it well-reasoned based on the undisputed facts and applicable law.

business & regulatorycriminal lawpropertyprocedure

In Meas v. City and County of San Francisco, plaintiff Jonathan Meas sued the City, its police chief, and several officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming constitutional violations after a late-night incident on a crowded San Francisco street in which a police car allegedly struck him and officers then confronted him following his kick to the vehicle. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment, and the district court granted the motion after reviewing the parties' evidence and arguments regarding the sequence of events, officer conduct, and applicable legal standards. The core reasoning centered on the absence of triable issues of material fact supporting the plaintiff's claims against the moving parties, with the court also denying leave to seek reconsideration for failing to meet the requirements of Local Rule 7-9. The opinion addresses evidentiary disputes over whether the car struck Meas, whether warnings were given, and the nature of the ensuing interaction.

civil rightsprocedure