Lucy Haeran Koh

This case is a class action brought by Northstar Financial Advisors on behalf of shareholders in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund, alleging that the fund and its managers deviated from the stated investment objective of tracking the Lehman Brothers U.S. Aggregate Bond Index by purchasing high-risk non-agency collateralized mortgage obligations and by concentrating more than 25% of assets in mortgage-backed securities, resulting in substantial losses. The complaint asserted claims for violation of Section 13(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and related theories. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The core reasoning was that there is no private right of action under ICA Section 13(a), the state-law claims were precluded by SLUSA because they alleged misrepresentations in connection with securities transactions, fiduciary-duty claims could only be brought derivatively rather than directly under Massachusetts law, and the plaintiffs failed to establish third-party beneficiary status under the relevant contracts.

business & regulatory

In Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Apple sued Samsung for infringement of its trade dress, trademarks, and utility and design patents based on Samsung's Galaxy cell phones and tablets. Samsung moved to compel expedited discovery of samples, packaging, and inserts for Apple's unreleased next-generation iPhone and iPad to prepare an opposition to a potential preliminary injunction. The court denied the motion, concluding that Samsung had not shown good cause because Apple's future products were not relevant to the issues in the preliminary injunction proceedings and the requested discovery did not match the reciprocal needs identified earlier in the case.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves plaintiff Joseph Ciampi suing the City of Palo Alto and police officers after an incident where officers responded to a complaint about him living in his van, used a ruse to get him out, and deployed a Taser to arrest him, leading to dismissed criminal charges. Ciampi alleged violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state law claims including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, defamation, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment. The court granted summary judgment to defendants on the §1983 claim, defamation, malicious prosecution, and false imprisonment/false arrest, but denied it on assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence. The reasoning centered on whether officers' actions, including the use of a bluff to induce exit from the van and the Taser deployment, constituted excessive force or other violations, finding no triable issues on some claims but genuine disputes on others.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This case is a class action lawsuit by purchasers of HP OfficeJet Pro 8500 series printers, alleging that HP made false or misleading marketing claims about the printers' scanning and copying speeds via the automatic document feeder, when a design defect actually caused frequent page-skipping. The court previously denied in part HP's motion to dismiss the UCL and CLRA claims on the ground that those statutes could impose liability for affirmative misrepresentations without proof of the defendant's prior knowledge of the defect. On reconsideration, the court grants HP's motion, vacates that portion of the prior order, and dismisses the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend. The court reasons that, consistent with authority interpreting the FAL and related consumer-protection statutes, plaintiffs must plausibly allege that HP knew or should have known of the defect when it made the challenged representations.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In Summers v. Delta Airlines, Inc., an 84-year-old plaintiff with mobility limitations sued Delta and Mesaba after falling and injuring herself while exiting a flight in San Jose without the wheelchair assistance she had prearranged, alleging violations of California Civil Code sections 2100 and 2101 plus common-law negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds that the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 and its DOT regulations preempt all state-law claims and that the complaint was otherwise deficient. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that the ACAA preempts state standards of care for airline passenger assistance but does not displace state remedies or causes of action, so the claims could proceed under the federal standard supplied by ACAA regulations. The court reasoned that the statute’s administrative enforcement scheme and savings clauses indicate Congress did not intend to eliminate state tort recovery for personal injuries.

civil rightsfederal powertorts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns patent infringement claims brought by Fujitsu against several defendants, including Taiwanese and California corporations, alleging that they made, sold, or imported wireless interface cards and related products infringing the Ozawa Patent on card-type input/output devices. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss, denying those based on insufficient service of process while quashing the existing service, denying the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over D-Link Corp., and granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Core reasoning focused on compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6), including standards for service on foreign entities, stream-of-commerce contacts with California, and the sufficiency of allegations for direct and indirect infringement under applicable pleading precedents.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a U.S. Forest Service project, funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, to clear vegetation within ten feet of the edge along approximately 750 miles of roads in the Los Padres National Forest. Plaintiff Los Padres Forestwatch, an environmental nonprofit, sued the Forest Service alleging that the agency had failed to follow the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) before approving the project, including proper consideration of whether a categorical exclusion applied or whether an environmental assessment or impact statement was needed. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on its NEPA claim and that the project posed a threat of concrete environmental harm to protected species and habitats. The injunction allows the project to proceed only under interim protective measures previously agreed to by the parties, such as use of on-site biologists and seasonal restrictions, pending a decision on the merits.

environmentprocedure

This case involves a shareholder challenge to a proposed $3.2 billion merger between Atheros Communications and Qualcomm, with the plaintiff alleging that the $45 per share price undervalued the company, that directors had conflicts of interest, and that the proxy statement omitted material information about the sales process and financial analysis. The plaintiff brought federal securities claims under the Exchange Act as individual claims and state-law breach of fiduciary duty claims as class claims, seeking a preliminary injunction to halt the scheduled shareholder vote. The court stayed the state-law claims under the Colorado River doctrine in light of parallel consolidated proceedings in the Delaware Court of Chancery and denied the preliminary injunction motion because it depended on the merits of the stayed claims without addressing the federal claims. The decision rested on the need to avoid duplicative litigation between federal and state courts over substantially the same issues and parties.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case is a class action brought by Northstar Financial Advisors on behalf of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund alleging that the fund deviated from its investment objectives by purchasing high-risk non-U.S. agency collateralized mortgage obligations not in the Lehman Brothers U.S. Aggregate Bond Index and by concentrating more than 25% of assets in mortgage-backed securities, resulting in losses. Plaintiffs asserted claims for violation of Section 13(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, dismissing the contract and good-faith claims with prejudice and the fiduciary-duty and third-party-beneficiary claims with leave to amend. The core reasoning was that the Ninth Circuit had already eliminated the private right of action under ICA Section 13(a), and SLUSA precluded the remaining claims to the extent they were based on alleged misrepresentations, except possibly a fiduciary-duty claim grounded solely in Massachusetts law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerns a coverage dispute between insurers Columbia Casualty Company and American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (AISLIC) regarding Columbia's obligation to contribute $5 million toward a settlement of a personal injury lawsuit against their common insured, Gordon Trucking, Inc., arising from a 2007 California highway accident. Columbia sought a declaration that it had no duty to pay because Gordon Trucking breached the policy's no voluntary payments provision by entering the settlement without Columbia's consent. AISLIC moved for partial summary judgment to compel Columbia's contribution, arguing lack of prejudice to Columbia and Columbia's failure to investigate the claim. The court granted Columbia's request for judicial notice and granted in part and denied in part AISLIC's motion, determining that Washington law governs enforcement of the policy provision and addressing whether prejudice must be shown and the scope of the insurer's investigative duties.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case is a class action lawsuit brought by plaintiff Chaim Kowalsky against Hewlett-Packard Company alleging that HP 8500 series printers were defective in their automatic document feeder, failing to perform as represented in marketing materials regarding scanning, copying, and faxing speeds and capacity. The plaintiff asserted claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and for breach of express and implied warranties, seeking damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a nationwide class. The court granted in part and denied in part HP's motion to dismiss under Federal Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b), evaluating the legal sufficiency of the allegations while accepting factual claims as true and applying heightened pleading standards to fraud-based claims. Core reasoning focused on whether the complaint stated plausible claims, including reliance on pre-purchase representations, particularity requirements for fraud, and the scope of warranty coverage.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs William and Loretta Ann Errico and their trust sued Pacific Capital Bank and a bank officer, alleging violations of the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) for failing to provide timely notice of an adverse credit decision or incomplete application regarding financing for a 140-unit condominium development in Turlock, California, along with related state-law claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and elder abuse. The court addressed the defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). It denied the motions as to the ECOA notice claims, promissory estoppel, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and elder abuse, finding the allegations sufficient to state those claims, including that plaintiffs had submitted a complete application. It granted the motions with leave to amend as to the ECOA age discrimination claim and the contract-related claims, determining those allegations were deficient.

business & regulatorycivil rights

In this case, plaintiff Terry Appling sued Wachovia Mortgage and Wells Fargo over a 2007 pick-a-payment mortgage loan secured by his Sunnyvale property, alleging violations of TILA for failing to disclose the certainty of negative amortization, along with claims for negligent misrepresentation, FCRA violations, breach of fiduciary duty, UCL violations, conversion, breach of contract, and wrongful foreclosure related to a holdback agreement and subsequent default and foreclosure. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court denied the motion as to the core TILA claim that the loan documents failed to clearly disclose negative amortization but dismissed the remaining TILA allegations with leave to amend, dismissed the state-law claims against the bank defendants with prejudice on HOLA preemption grounds, and dismissed the FCRA, conversion, contract, and wrongful foreclosure claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim or mootness.

propertybusiness & regulatoryfederal power