Robert G. Klausner

The case involves Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P. alleging that GEICO infringed sixteen claims across multiple related patents on interactive call processing systems. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court found several claims invalid as anticipated or obvious in light of prior art such as Student Registration and Moosemiller, or indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, and determined that certain GEICO systems did not infringe other claims; it also granted Katz summary judgment on defenses including equitable estoppel, inequitable conduct, and best mode. The rulings rested on direct comparison of claim elements to prior art disclosures, assessment of whether references were cumulative, and evaluation of whether the specifications adequately described the claimed subject matter.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Marcos Florez after his state court conviction for selling/transporting heroin and possessing heroin for sale, along with related weight enhancements and prior convictions. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the petition with prejudice and declining to issue a certificate of appealability. The sole claim was that Florez was denied his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation under Faretta v. California. Applying AEDPA deference, the court found the state court's denial reasonable because Florez's request to represent himself was equivocal, as he initially sought a state-appointed attorney, later indicated he did not need the public defender, and did not renew the request at sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a state prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 2003 conviction for second-degree robbery and sentence of 28 years to life. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant the respondent's motion to dismiss the petition. The court found that the petition was filed after the one-year statute of limitations under AEDPA had expired, as the prisoner's state habeas petitions did not toll the entire period due to unreasonable delays between filings, and the actual innocence exception did not apply because no evidence of innocence was presented.

criminal lawprocedure

In Browne v. McCain, singer Jackson Browne sued Senator John McCain, the Republican National Committee, and the Ohio Republican Party for copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, and violation of the Lanham Act after the defendants used his song "Running on Empty" in a 2008 web video criticizing Barack Obama's energy policy. The RNC moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing fair use protected the use and that no likelihood of confusion existed regarding endorsement. The court denied the motion, holding that fair use did not bar the claims as a matter of law at the pleading stage and that the complaint sufficiently alleged facts that could support likelihood of confusion under the Sleekcraft factors without needing to resolve all factors at this time. The court deferred ruling on the right of publicity claim to a separate order on a special motion to strike.

free speechelections

In Browne v. McCain, singer Jackson Browne sued Republican presidential candidate John McCain, the Republican National Committee, and the Ohio Republican Party over their use of his copyrighted song "Running on Empty" in a 2008 web video criticizing Barack Obama's energy policy. The present order addresses the RNC's special motion to strike Browne's common law right of publicity claim. The court denied the motion, finding that the RNC had not met its burden to show the use was transformative because the commercial featured an unaltered, verbatim copy of portions of the song, including Browne's voice. The decision rested on application of California's transformative use test to the political advertisement.

electionsfree speech

Moroccanoil, Inc. sued Moroccan Gold, LLC and Fantasia Industries Corp. for trademark infringement and related claims under federal and state law, alleging that the defendants' "Moroccan Miracle Oil Hair Treatment" and packaging were confusingly similar to the plaintiff's "Moroccanoil Oil Treatment" products made with argan oil. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the defendants from using the similar marks, trade dress, and certain sales practices. The court reasoned that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits due to a likelihood of consumer confusion from the similar marks and packaging, which the defendants adopted despite notice from the USPTO; that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm without relief; that the balance of equities favored the plaintiff given the defendants' intentional conduct; and that an injunction served the public interest in preventing consumer deception.

business & regulatory

In McKettrick v. Yates, a California state prisoner filed a pro se federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2004 convictions for evading an officer, petty theft with a prior, and unlawful taking of a vehicle, along with his aggregate sentence of eight years and four months that included upper terms based on aggravating factors found by the judge. The petitioner had exhausted some claims through state appeals and a later state habeas petition, but raised issues including the applicability of Cunningham v. California to his sentencing. The district court, after de novo review, adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full. It dismissed the first amended petition with prejudice, finding certain claims unexhausted, others procedurally defaulted or not cognizable, and the sentencing claims without merit under AEDPA standards because Cunningham announced a new rule not retroactively applicable on collateral review. The court also denied the petitioner's motion to amend to add an ineffective assistance claim.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Mad Dogg Athletics suing NYC Holding for claims including cyberpiracy, federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, and dilution related to unauthorized use of its SPIN and SPINNING marks on domain names like spinningclass.com. After obtaining a default judgment ordering statutory damages, fees, and an injunction, the plaintiff moved to amend the judgment to add Richard A. Whitney as a judgment debtor on the theory that he was interchangeable with the fictitious business entity NYC Holding. The court granted the motion, finding good cause under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 116.560 and 187, as evidence from domain registrations and mailbox records showed Whitney owned and controlled the infringing sites with no distinction from the defendant entity. It further held that personal jurisdiction and service extended to Whitney based on the original contacts with California and that his objections were untimely given his control over the matter.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case was a federal civil rights lawsuit brought by an inmate against nine prison staff members at California State Prison, Los Angeles County, claiming that his extended placement in administrative segregation was retaliation for refusing to cooperate in an investigation into a narcotics smuggling conspiracy and violated his due process rights. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case with prejudice. The core reasoning was that the confinement advanced legitimate penological goals, including protecting the integrity of the ongoing investigation, and the plaintiff provided no evidence that this stated purpose was pretextual.

civil rights

The case concerned plaintiff Laura Nelson's claims against debt collector Arrow Financial Services and others for allegedly reporting and attempting to collect on a disputed $187 debt that was not hers, in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and California FDCPA. Arrow moved for summary judgment, arguing that many claims were barred by a prior 2005 settlement release and the statute of limitations, while disputing liability on remaining allegations such as failure to reinvestigate and improper re-reporting. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that claims based on pre-2005 conduct were released or time-barred but allowing certain FCRA reinvestigation claims to proceed, and reducing statutory damages from $15,000 to $1,000 for a total award of $86,000.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved an inmate at a California women's prison who sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that her placement in administrative segregation pending investigation of drug trafficking and the subsequent disciplinary hearing violated her procedural due process rights. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the case with prejudice. The court reasoned that the plaintiff failed to establish a protected liberty interest because the conditions in administrative segregation were not atypical compared to ordinary prison life, and even if such an interest existed, the process provided was adequate. The court also noted issues with the plaintiff's evidence and did not need to reach other defenses like immunity.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by a California prisoner who had been convicted of making terrorist threats and later certified by the Board of Prison Terms as a mentally disordered offender under Penal Code § 2962. The petitioner challenged the state court's finding that he had a severe mental disorder not in remission, was non-compliant with prescribed medication, and posed a substantial danger to others. The district court, after de novo review, adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full, denied the petition, and dismissed the action. Applying AEDPA standards, the court held that the state court's decision was neither contrary to clearly established federal law nor based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence, which included multiple psychological evaluations and testimony supporting the MDO criteria.

criminal lawprocedure

This ERISA case involves a former employee who became totally disabled in 1996 and sued her employer's health, life, dental, and vision plans and insurer after they terminated her coverage in 2003, despite a prior court order awarding her disability benefits. The plaintiff sought reinstatement of benefits, restitution, injunctive relief, and statutory penalties for the defendants' failure to provide requested plan documents. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding that the insurer abused its discretion in denying benefits because the plan language did not support termination based on the employer's plan ending or the plaintiff's eligibility status, and that the administrative record showed the denial improperly relied on a different plan's terms. The court also awarded a $10,000 penalty for the document production failures but reduced the requested amount, while denying the defendants' cross-motion as moot.

labor & employmenthealthcare

The case concerned a trademark dispute in which Switchmusic.com, Inc. sought declaratory relief that its lower-priced guitars sold under the 'Wild' and 'Stein' brands did not infringe U.S. Music Corp. and Washburn International Corp.'s rights in the body shape of their 'Parker' guitar line, and did not constitute unfair competition or dilution under federal and state law. Defendants counterclaimed for common-law trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution, and false designation of origin. On plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, ruling that certain admissions from defendants' failure to respond to requests for admission, combined with the absence of evidence on secondary meaning, likelihood of confusion, and dilution, entitled plaintiff to judgment on the unfair-competition claims while leaving other issues for trial.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Imperial v. Castruita, Mayor Jay Imperial, Council member Gary Taylor, and voter Lan Lee sued the Rosemead City Council and City Clerk to halt a February 7, 2006 recall election, alleging that the English-only recall petition violated Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act by failing to provide bilingual materials for limited-English-proficient Chinese-speaking voters, as well as related state election code provisions. Following the Ninth Circuit's decision in Padilla v. Lever applying the VRA's multilingual requirements to recall petitions, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court reasoned that plaintiffs showed a probable likelihood of success on the VRA claim and would suffer irreparable harm from an unlawful election that could remove officials from office without adequate remedy, outweighing any hardship to defendants from delaying the process.

electionscivil rights

This case was a class action ERISA lawsuit brought by participants in Syncor International Corporation's employee savings and stock ownership plan against the company and two board members. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allowing investments in Syncor stock despite knowing about an international bribery scheme that violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment. The core reasoning was that the plaintiffs failed to rebut the presumption of prudence applicable to ESOP investments, as there was no evidence showing the stock was an imprudent investment or that the company faced imminent collapse.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case centered on allegations that Sequel Contractors and JHTM & Associates overbilled Orange County for paving and construction work at John Wayne Airport through inflated Job Orders and Payment Requests, prompting a qui tam action by Sialic Contractors under the federal and California False Claims Acts, followed by the County's intervention asserting additional claims for fraud, negligence, breach of contract, and negligent misrepresentation. JHTM filed counterclaims against the County for breach of contract, negligence, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. The court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the primary claims and most counterclaims, as well as a motion for a more definite statement, finding the pleadings sufficiently alleged a common scheme with particularity under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6); however, it granted dismissal of JHTM's UCL claim without prejudice because it sought damages rather than restitution. The rulings rested on standards for subject matter jurisdiction, pleading sufficiency, and the limited remedies available under the UCL.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

In Wright v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, plaintiff Robert Wright sued the FBI and DOJ under the Privacy Act, alleging that an FBI agent improperly disclosed details from his personnel records to journalist James Crogan without consent. Wright subpoenaed Crogan for a deposition and documents to support his claim, but Crogan invoked a qualified First Amendment journalist's privilege. The magistrate judge denied Wright's motion to compel, finding the requested information was already public and not clearly relevant to the Privacy Act claim. On review, the district court upheld the denial, holding that the magistrate's application of the Shoen II test was not clearly erroneous because Wright failed to show the material was unavailable elsewhere, noncumulative, and actually relevant, given that he himself had publicized much of the information.

free speechcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved a pro se plaintiff, civilly committed as a sexually violent predator at Atascadero State Hospital under California's Sexually Violent Predator Act, who filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging five causes of action against hospital staff and officials, including denial of a right to truth in evidence, violation of medical records privacy under federal regulations and the state constitution, equal protection violations from arbitrary rules, and Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations from the creation of false forensic documents used in his commitment. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's final report and recommendation after de novo review. It dismissed the second cause of action with prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted and dismissed the remaining causes of action without prejudice. The decision rested on the requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen and dismiss in forma pauperis complaints that fail to state a viable claim, considering the allegations alongside attached documents and the statutory framework for SVP commitments.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

Thor Seafood Corporation sued Supply Management Services, Inc. and AFC Enterprises, Inc. for breach of contract after the defendants reduced their order of crawfish tail meat for the third year of a three-year supply agreement from twelve containers to three or four. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact on the key contract interpretation question. The core reasoning was that the agreement's plain language gave SMS the option to adjust quantities downward based on its estimate of use without requiring advance notice by March 1, unlike increases or other modifications, and the notice and amendment provisions did not create ambiguity or impose such a requirement; disputes over when notice was actually given were therefore immaterial.

business & regulatory