Margaret M. Morrow

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.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

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.

civil rightsprocedure

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.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

criminal lawproperty

In Grant v. Aurora Loan Services, Inc., plaintiff Darren Grant sued Aurora after it foreclosed on his Woodland Hills residence and a San Francisco rental property following his default on a refinanced mortgage. Grant alleged that Aurora deliberately delayed responses to his short-sale proposals through inefficient paperwork processes, preventing completion of sales before foreclosure, and asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, fraudulent concealment, set-aside of foreclosure, and unfair business practices. The court granted Aurora's motion to dismiss the second through eighth causes of action under Rule 12(b)(6). It reasoned that the claims failed because Grant did not allege tender of the full loan amount as required to challenge a foreclosure sale, the fraud allegations lacked particularity and evidence of intent not to perform, and the unfair practices claim was not supported by sufficient facts showing a violation of law or a cognizable injury.

propertybusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

Gregory Roth filed a putative class action in California state court against Comerica Bank and related entities, alleging violations of state labor laws including failure to pay overtime wages, provide required meal and rest periods, furnish accurate wage statements, and pay all wages due upon termination or within required payroll periods. The defendants removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), asserting diversity jurisdiction based on an amount in controversy exceeding $5 million. Roth moved to remand the action to state court. The court granted the motion, holding that the defendants failed to meet their burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy satisfied CAFA's jurisdictional threshold, as their calculations relied on unsupported assumptions regarding the frequency of violations, the number of affected class members, and other key variables without sufficient evidentiary support from the complaint or other sources.

labor & employmentprocedure

Rebecca Yumul filed a putative class action against Smart Balance, Inc., alleging that the labeling of its Nucoa margarine product was misleading because it described the product as 'cholesterol free' and 'healthy' despite containing artificial trans fat linked to increased risks of coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer. The complaint asserted violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, seeking injunctive relief, corrective advertising, restitution, and destruction of deceptive materials. Smart Balance moved to dismiss, arguing in part that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that the delayed discovery rule did not apply due to public awareness of trans fat risks. The court denied this portion of the motion, holding that whether Yumul reasonably should have discovered the alleged deception earlier presented a question of fact not resolved by general publicity or media coverage alone, and that such awareness did not automatically trigger the limitations period under California law.

business & regulatory

In United States v. Garcia, defendant Juana Cesivel Garcia was charged with multiple counts of aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, crack cocaine, and powder cocaine after a traffic stop revealed drugs concealed in the vehicle. The court had previously set a discovery deadline of June 30, 2010, after which any undisclosed evidence would be inadmissible. Garcia filed motions in limine to exclude testimony from an unnamed drug trafficking expert and evidence of her 2006 prior drug conviction, both of which the government had not produced by the deadline, with the prior conviction also challenged under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The court granted both motions, holding that the government's failure to comply with the specific court-ordered discovery deadline required exclusion of the evidence, regardless of arguments based on other circuits' interpretations of Rule 16 or Brady obligations.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from failed negotiations in 2005 for PSM Holding Corp. to purchase BAIC, an insurance company owned by the Chaos and National Farm Financial Corp., followed by PSM's lawsuit claiming breach of contract and fraud after the deal collapsed. PSM prevailed at trial with a multimillion-dollar judgment, prompting defendants to file for bankruptcy, but the Ninth Circuit later reversed, holding that no valid contract existed because the stock purchase agreement required signatures from all parties that were never obtained. On defendants' subsequent motion, the district court addressed claims for restitution of assets transferred under the vacated judgment and for attorneys' fees incurred in related proceedings. The court applied established principles allowing restitution after reversal of a judgment and evaluated fee requests under California statutes governing contract-based awards and post-judgment costs, ultimately granting the motion in part and denying it in part based on the procedural posture and specific legal entitlements.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a habeas corpus petition by Kenneth Lang, who was convicted in 1984 of robbery-murder and sentenced to death in California. After prior appeals, the district court addressed claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt phase, prosecutorial misconduct under Brady and Napue regarding alleged coerced or false witness testimony, and deficient performance by counsel at the penalty phase. The court denied relief on the guilt-phase ineffective assistance and Brady/Napue claims, finding no credible evidence that the prosecutor coerced testimony or knowingly presented false evidence. It determined that trial counsel's performance was deficient at the penalty phase due to failure to investigate or present mitigation evidence, but deferred a ruling on prejudice pending further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Landstar Ranger Inc., a motor carrier, sued defendant Parth Enterprises Inc. for breach of contract after Parth failed to pay $243,817.34 for sixty interstate shipments transported between September and November 2008 under bills of lading naming Parth as shipper. The clerk entered default against Parth after it failed to appear despite service, and the court dismissed claims against the other defendant for lack of prosecution. The court granted Landstar's motion for default judgment, awarding the principal amount plus prejudgment interest at 10% under California Civil Code § 3289, after finding that plaintiff satisfied procedural requirements under Rule 55 and Local Rule 55-1, that the Eitel factors supported entry of judgment, and that the complaint's factual allegations regarding the unpaid invoices were deemed admitted.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Buckley Crispin suing Christian Audigier and related defendants for breach of contract, copyright infringement, and related claims arising from an alleged oral license to use Crispin's artwork on apparel and other products. Defendants served subpoenas on third parties including Facebook, MySpace, and Media Temple seeking subscriber information and communications related to the parties and agreement; Crispin moved to quash them, arguing violations of the Stored Communications Act (SCA) and other protections. The magistrate judge denied the motion to quash, but on review the district court granted the motion in part, holding that the SCA applies to the social networking sites as providers of electronic communication and remote computing services. The court reasoned that private messages and wall postings/comments qualify as communications held in electronic storage for backup purposes, making compelled disclosure by subpoena improper under the statute.

procedure

Rebecca Yumul filed a putative class action against Smart Balance, Inc., alleging that its Nucoa margarine was misleadingly labeled as 'cholesterol free' and 'healthy' despite containing artificial trans fat linked to health risks such as coronary heart disease, and asserting claims under California's unfair competition law, false advertising law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff sought injunctive relief, corrective advertising, restitution, and destruction of deceptive materials, while arguing that the statute of limitations should be tolled due to the defendant's alleged affirmative concealment and misrepresentations on product packaging. In ruling on the defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court applied California law requiring affirmative acts of concealment (rather than mere self-concealing fraud or nondisclosure) for equitable tolling and granted the motion in part and denied it in part.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Juniaty Prawoto suing PrimeLending in California state court over alleged state and federal violations related to a mortgage loan on an investment property in Oak Point, Texas; the defendant removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss for improper venue or transfer it to the Eastern District of Texas. The court granted the motion to transfer venue and denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the action was local rather than transitory under the common-law local action doctrine. The core reasoning was that the complaint sought remedies affecting title to the Texas land, including a quiet title claim, so the suit could only be brought in the district where the property was located.

propertyprocedure

This case originated in 1982 as a class action by Salvadoran nationals challenging alleged INS practices in detaining, processing, and removing asylum seekers, resulting in a 1988 permanent injunction mandating specific procedures. In 2005, the government moved to dissolve the injunction citing changed conditions in El Salvador and new expedited removal laws under IIRIRA, prompting extensive litigation over jurisdiction, discovery, and conflicts with the injunction. Plaintiffs prevailed in opposing dissolution on key issues and subsequently sought attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court granted the fee motion in part, awarding compensation after analyzing prevailing party status, reasonable hourly rates based on market surveys and declarations, and allowable hours while applying reductions for certain inefficiencies or non-compensable work.

immigrationcivil rightsprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs David and Meagan Henry challenging the FDIC's deposit insurance determination for five revocable trust accounts totaling over $634,000 at failed IndyMac Bank, where the FDIC insured $477,735.52 based on seven qualifying beneficiaries (siblings) and treated the rest as uninsured single-ownership funds. The court reviewed the determination under the Administrative Procedure Act to assess whether it was arbitrary or capricious. The FDIC applied then-existing rules limiting coverage for non-qualifying beneficiaries like a friend and in-laws, leading to an uninsured amount of about $157,000. Plaintiffs argued for retroactive application of newer regulations that might have expanded coverage, but the court found no clear intent for retroactivity under Landgraf standards and noted the regulation's rational basis in limiting insurance. The court upheld the FDIC's approach as consistent with governing law and evidence.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case is a federal civil rights action brought by a state prisoner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison physicians, alleging Eighth Amendment violations from inadequate treatment of an ear infection with hearing loss and psoriasis. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full. It denied summary judgment to Dr. Echendu on the ear-related claim due to disputed facts about the adequacy of care but granted summary judgment to Dr. Echendu on the psoriasis claim and to Dr. Fortaleza on all claims, dismissing those portions with prejudice. The core reasoning centered on the absence of evidence showing deliberate indifference to serious medical needs for the dismissed claims, as medical records demonstrated examinations, prescribed treatments, and referrals, while a triable issue remained only for the ear condition.

civil rightscriminal law

This case involves an ERISA action brought by Frank Porco against Prudential and his employer's long-term disability plan, challenging the denial of benefits after he stopped working due to spinal issues. Porco, a corporate quality engineer, underwent surgery in 2002 for what was initially thought to be a bone cyst but turned out to involve nerve tissue and spinal stenosis, leading to ongoing symptoms including pain, limited mobility, and other impairments. The court reviewed the administrative record, including medical examinations, job descriptions, and surveillance evidence, and made findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding whether Porco met the plan's definition of disability for his regular occupation and any gainful occupation. The court decided in Porco's favor, determining that he was entitled to retroactive reinstatement of benefits based on the medical evidence of his condition and limitations. Core reasoning centered on the plan's ERISA governance, the definitions of disability and gainful occupation, and the sufficiency of evidence showing Porco could not perform required duties.

labor & employmenthealthcare