This case involves a motion by defendant Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) to reconsider a magistrate judge's protective order in ongoing litigation with the United States. The order addressed SPI counsel's attendance at a public Forest Service tour, where an attorney communicated with agency employees about matters in the case without disclosing his role or obtaining consent from government counsel, in alleged violation of California's no-contact ethical rule (Rule 2-100). The district court denied reconsideration, holding that the magistrate judge's findings were not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court reasoned that the public officer exception to the no-contact rule did not apply, as the employees lacked policymaking authority and the contacts were aimed at gathering litigation evidence rather than exercising First Amendment petition rights. The order required SPI to disclose all such contacts and related materials.
In Fontana v. Alpine County, plaintiffs David and Lisa Fontana sued Alpine County officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of Mr. Fontana's Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights stemming from a 2006 criminal investigation and trial on charges of inappropriate touching of minors, which ended in acquittal; the complaint claimed issues including lack of investigation training, ignored recantations, fabricated or destroyed evidence, warrantless arrest at gunpoint, false statements, perjury, and failure to supervise, with Mrs. Fontana seeking loss of consortium damages. Defendants moved to dismiss based on absolute and qualified immunity and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing with prejudice claims against certain defendants in their official capacities, the first cause of action, and punitive damages against the county, while dismissing without prejudice the Sixth Amendment claims, state law claims, and Mrs. Fontana's claim, and allowing leave to amend within twenty days; reasoning centered on immunity doctrines protecting officials from suit, plaintiffs' failure to plead plausible claims or separate causes of action with accrual details, and legal bars to punitive damages against municipalities.
The case concerned claims by the estate and family of inmate Jessie P. Contreras, who died by suicide in Glenn County Jail after indicating he was suicidal but receiving no mental health evaluation, safety cell placement, or suicide watch monitoring. Plaintiffs asserted federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state-law survival and wrongful death claims against the county, sheriff's department, and sheriff. The court dismissed the fourth claim for municipal and supervisory liability without prejudice, dismissed Leonor Contreras in her individual capacity from the survival claims with prejudice, struck all allegations seeking damages for the decedent's pre-death pain and suffering with prejudice under California survival statutes and Eastern District precedent, and granted leave to add the decedent's minor daughter as a plaintiff.
This case concerns survivor claims brought by the family of Jessie P. Contreras, an inmate who died by suicide in Glenn County Jail after allegedly receiving no mental health care or monitoring despite indicating he was suicidal. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss Leonor Contreras's individual-capacity survivor claims for lack of standing under California survival statutes, while permitting amendment to add the decedent's minor daughter as a plaintiff and to clarify the estate's representative capacity. It also granted the motion to strike allegations seeking damages for the decedent's pre-death pain and suffering, holding such recovery unavailable in §1983 survival actions because California law already supplies compensatory damages to survivors. Official-capacity claims against the individual defendants were dismissed as redundant.
The case involves the United States seeking recovery of response costs incurred by the EPA for addressing releases of hazardous substances at the Iron Mountain Mines Superfund Site under CERCLA Section 107(a). The defendants had previously been found jointly and severally liable as owners and operators of the facility. On the motion for partial summary judgment, the court awarded the government $26,968,134.84 in response costs incurred through February 29, 1996, plus $30,172,534.69 in prejudgment interest through fiscal year 2009, with additional interest to accrue until paid. The court reasoned that the plaintiff established a prima facie case for recovery under the strict liability provisions of CERCLA, the response actions were consistent with the National Contingency Plan, and the defendants failed to raise any genuine issue of material fact regarding inconsistency with the NCP.
This case involved the City of Vallejo's Chapter 9 bankruptcy filing and its motion to reject collective bargaining agreements with unions including the IBEW under Bankruptcy Code Section 365(a). The Bankruptcy Court ruled that federal bankruptcy law, as interpreted in NLRB v. Bildisco, governed the rejection of public sector contracts and found that the City met the applicable legal standard after unsuccessful mediation. On appeal, the District Court reviewed the legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error, affirmed that Section 365 applied, that the Bildisco requirements were satisfied including reasonable negotiation efforts and unlikelihood of agreement, and upheld the rejection order. The court noted that all parties faced cuts due to insolvency and that the findings were not clearly erroneous.
labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power
PMA Capital Insurance Company sued American Safety Indemnity Company (ASIC) for equitable contribution to recover over $1 million in defense costs and settlement payments from a resolved construction defect case involving their mutual insured, a plumbing subcontractor. The court granted ASIC's motion for summary judgment and denied PMA's motion. The court reasoned that under the ASIC policies, the term "occurrence" referred to the insured's negligent work, which was completed before the policies took effect, and that both the occurrence and resulting property damage must occur during the policy period for coverage to apply; because PMA failed to show a potential for coverage, ASIC had no duty to defend and thus owed no contribution.
