The case involved a plaintiff with physical disabilities suing the City of Lomita for allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California Disabled Persons Act by failing to provide any handicap-accessible on-street diagonal parking stalls, thereby denying equal access to public facilities. The court denied the city's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). It reasoned that Title II of the ADA broadly requires public entities to make all services, programs, and activities readily accessible to individuals with disabilities, even absent specific regulations on on-street parking, as confirmed by the statute's text, implementing rules, and precedents such as Barden v. City of Sacramento.
In Niu v. United States, a Chinese citizen and research scientist challenged multiple denials by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of his I-140 visa petitions and I-485 applications for adjustment of status to permanent resident, claiming the decisions were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order to prevent the agency from revoking his approved I-140 petition. The court granted the TRO, finding the plaintiff likely to succeed on the merits because USCIS had improperly refused to apply an approved petition to a pending application and had failed to consider the "no fault" exception to the requirement of continuous lawful status. The court also determined that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief, as loss of the approved petition would block his path to permanent residency.
In Chavarria v. Ralphs Grocery Co., an employee filed a class action lawsuit against her employer alleging various wage and hour violations under California law and seeking unpaid wages. The employer moved to compel individual arbitration and dismiss or stay the case under the Federal Arbitration Act, relying on an arbitration policy referenced in the plaintiff's employment application and acknowledged at orientation. The court denied the motion, finding the arbitration agreement both procedurally unconscionable due to inadequate disclosure of its terms and substantively unconscionable because of provisions such as the employer's exclusive role in selecting a retired judge as arbitrator (barring organizations like AAA or JAMS), limits on discovery, and a fee-splitting arrangement that could impose substantial costs on the employee. The core reasoning centered on the one-sided and oppressive nature of the policy's terms under California unconscionability doctrine, which rendered it unenforceable.
Northrop Grumman sued Factory Mutual Insurance over coverage for nearly $940 million in property damage from Hurricane Katrina under a $20 billion excess all-risks policy that attached above a $500 million primary layer. The parties cross-moved for partial summary judgment on whether storm-surge and time-element losses fell within the primary policies' $400 million flood sublimit, thereby preventing exhaustion of the primary layer, and on which party bore the burden of identifying excluded flood losses. The court granted Northrop's motion on burdens of proof, holding that under an all-risks policy the insurer must prove the application of exclusions once the insured shows a covered loss, and denied Factory Mutual's motion seeking to shift that burden or require Northrop to revise its proof of loss. It further ruled that the Ninth Circuit's earlier decision on the flood exclusion did not alter the allocation of proof burdens or Northrop's duty to cooperate.
The case involves Western Pacific Kraft (WPK), a wholesaler of paper bags, suing its supplier and competitor Duro Bag Manufacturing for allegedly providing secret rebates and discounts to WPK's customers, in violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17045, which prohibits secret allowances that injure competitors and tend to destroy competition. Duro moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing insufficient allegations of secrecy, harm, and competitive injury. The court denied the motion, finding that the first amended complaint plausibly alleged secret rebates through a price squeeze, harm to WPK by losing customers, and a tendency to destroy competition by giving Duro a major pricing advantage.
In Bates v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance, the plaintiffs, as beneficiaries of their mother's accidental death and dismemberment insurance policy, sued the insurer after it denied their claim for benefits following her death from a fall-related injury. The complaint included causes of action for bad faith, breach of contract, negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Code § 17200. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the third, fourth, and fifth causes of action, holding that the unfair competition claim was barred because the Unfair Insurance Practices Act does not create a private right of action and that negligence-based tort claims are unavailable against insurers for handling insurance claims. The court denied the motion to strike the punitive damages prayer, finding it adequately pleaded in connection with the remaining bad faith claim.
