This case involves former executives of Opus West Corporation suing Opus Corporation, its parent, and related trusts and individuals, claiming they are owed compensation and deferred compensation under employment agreements and ERISA-governed benefit plans, and alleging that defendants caused improper dividend transfers that contributed to Opus West's bankruptcy. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting state law and ERISA claims after the initial filing in 2010. The court addressed defendants' motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims, granting it in part and denying it in part based on analysis of plan documents, dividend formulas, fiduciary obligations under ERISA, and whether defendants were obligated to make benefit payments.
Chris Kohler, a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair, filed suit against CJP, Ltd., owner of the Potomac Square Shopping Center, alleging that multiple barriers in the disabled parking spaces, access aisles, ramps, and signage violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, and related state health and safety statutes. Kohler claimed these barriers prevented equal access and deterred future visits, seeking damages, injunctive relief, and fees. Defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing insufficient allegations of standing, specific ADA violations, and intentional discrimination. The court denied the motion, concluding that the complaint's detailed factual allegations adequately established jurisdiction, stated a claim under the ADA without requiring citation to specific accessibility guidelines, and sufficiently pleaded discriminatory intent for the state-law claims.
The case is a putative class action filed by a California plaintiff against Mercedes-Benz USA alleging that E-Class vehicles from model years 2002-2009 contain a uniform design or manufacturing defect in the water drainage system that causes leaks, interior flooding, electrical failures, and safety hazards. The claims asserted violations of the CLRA, Secret Warranty Law, UCL, and breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Act, based on allegations that the defendant knew of the defect, issued secret technical bulletins with temporary fixes, and failed to cover repairs under warranty. The court denied the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), granted in part and denied in part the motion under Rule 12(b)(6), and denied the motion to strike class allegations, primarily on grounds that the plaintiff adequately pleaded standing, certain consumer protection and warranty claims, and class-wide issues at the pleading stage.
Dietz, a public insurance adjuster, sued its professional liability insurer Evanston for breach of contract and bad faith after discovering an employee's embezzlement of over $2 million from client funds, which led Dietz to reimburse 49 affected clients. Evanston moved for summary judgment, arguing that Dietz's payments violated policy conditions requiring written insurer consent before settling claims or incurring expenses. The court granted the motion, holding that Dietz's independent resolutions of the claims without notice or consent constituted voluntary payments not covered under the 2006/2007 policy, and that no exception for lack of awareness applied given Dietz's knowledge of the policy terms. The ruling emphasized that the policy treated related claims as a single occurrence first made during the policy period but barred recovery due to the consent and notice provisions.
The case involved depositors Lesley and Steven Ard who lost over two million dollars when IndyMac Bank closed in 2008. They sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, claiming negligence by the Office of Thrift Supervision and the FDIC in issuing public statements that reassured depositors about the bank's stability. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint without leave to amend. It held that the claims were barred by the misrepresentation exception and the discretionary function exception to the FTCA, as the agencies' actions involved discretionary functions and the statements constituted misrepresentations. The court also noted that any amendment would be futile.
business & regulatorytorts & liabilityfederal power
This case involved the United States seeking civil forfeiture of a residential property in Santa Paula, California, under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) after law enforcement discovered both indoor and outdoor marijuana cultivation operations there during a 2005 search. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, ordering forfeiture of the entire property. The ruling rested on undisputed facts showing that a significant portion of the property was used to grow marijuana, that the owner had knowledge of at least the indoor grow and an affirmative duty to investigate and stop the activity, and that federal law requires forfeiture of the whole legally described tract when any part facilitates drug offenses.
