Dana Makoto Sabraw

The case involved a homeowner with multiple medical conditions causing extreme sensitivity to chemicals who sued her homeowners association and management company after they applied pesticides, fertilizers, and similar substances near her property in 2008 and 2009, allegedly causing her physical injury and emotional distress despite her requests for accommodations. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all fifteen claims against them, arguing there was no evidence of a causal link between the applications and the plaintiff's harm. The court denied the motion, finding that the plaintiff's own testimony about the timing of the chemical applications and her resulting symptoms created a genuine dispute of material fact on causation sufficient to defeat summary judgment, even though her earlier request for a preliminary injunction had been denied for lack of proof that harm was likely.

civil rightspropertytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case concerns a lawful permanent resident from the Philippines who, after a 2007 state conviction for willful infliction of corporal injury, was placed in removal proceedings as an aggravated felon and detained by immigration authorities pending the outcome of his appeals. The petitioner filed for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming his prolonged detention was unreasonable and that his bond hearings were procedurally deficient in violation of due process, including failures to apply the correct burden of proof, provide counsel, and properly limit evidence considered. The district court held that it had jurisdiction to review claims of legal and constitutional error in the bond proceedings despite limits on reviewing discretionary immigration decisions. It concluded that certain procedural shortcomings existed in the hearings and granted the amended petition, issuing a conditional writ of habeas corpus requiring a new bond hearing before an immigration judge within thirty days or the petitioner's release.

immigrationcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned a dispute between two insurance companies over whether defendant National Union Fire Insurance had a duty to defend a grading contractor in two underlying construction-defect lawsuits filed in state court. Plaintiff American Safety Indemnity Company, which had defended the contractor under its earlier policies, sought declaratory relief and equitable contribution after defendant refused to defend under its later policy. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court granted plaintiff's motion and denied defendant's, holding that the policy language was ambiguous as to the duty to defend and that California rules of contract interpretation required the ambiguity to be resolved against the insurer.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a class action by plaintiff Eduardo Larin against Bank of America alleging violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unfair competition and false advertising laws, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The claims stemmed from the bank's alleged enrollment of the plaintiff in an uncollected funds protection plan without consent, which made deposited funds available faster and led to overdraft-related fees and credit card charges when a $7,500 check was later returned. The court granted the bank's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice, holding that the claims were preempted by the Expedited Funds Availability Act and National Bank Act because they directly concerned the bank's deposit-taking powers and funds availability policies for checking accounts. The reasoning focused on the federal statutes' express preemption of state laws regulating these banking functions, distinguishing the allegations from non-preempted cases involving only overdraft posting or fee practices.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case arose after Border Patrol agent Arturo Lorenzo shot and killed a person during a 2007 border altercation near Calexico, California; plaintiffs alleged that Customs and Border Protection employees altered surveillance video of the incident by adding identifying information and then released it, leading to threats, emotional distress, and relocation. They sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Privacy Act for invasion of privacy, negligent supervision, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and related claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the government's motion to dismiss, holding that sovereign immunity barred the intentional-tort and negligent-supervision claims, that the remaining privacy claims failed to state a cause of action, and that the wife lacked standing on the statutory claim, while allowing the husband's Privacy Act claim and the negligent-infliction claim to proceed.

immigrationfederal powerproceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiffs Carlos and Laura McGrew alleged that defendant Countrywide Home Loans coerced them into a negatively amortizing adjustable-rate mortgage through false statements and predatory lending practices, asserting six claims including violations of TILA, breach of fiduciary duty under TILA, TCPA, California's Unfair Competition Law, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and declaratory relief regarding foreclosure without the original note. The court dismissed the TILA damages claim with prejudice as time-barred, the fiduciary duty claim with leave to amend because no duty was owed to borrowers and no private right of action exists, the Rosenthal Act claim with leave to amend for failure to state a viable misrepresentation, and the declaratory relief claim because California law permits nonjudicial foreclosure without physical possession of the note. It denied dismissal of the TCPA and Unfair Competition Law claims but struck references to unavailable statutory damages under the latter. Overall, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part, with leave to amend certain claims.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involved a dispute over life insurance death benefits for a secondary insured spouse after the primary insured and the spouse divorced. The plaintiff sought benefits following the death of his former wife, but the insurer denied the claim, arguing coverage ended upon divorce. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, ruling that the policy clearly defined a secondary insured as the "lawful spouse" and terminated coverage when that status ceased, which occurred at divorce. The court found the policy language unambiguous and consistent with reasonable expectations, so no benefits were due, and there was no bad faith.

business & regulatoryfamily law

This case is a consolidated class action by multiple borrowers against Countrywide Financial Corp., its subsidiaries, and Bank of America, alleging a scheme to steer borrowers into subprime pay-option ARM loans through misrepresentations and nondisclosures about payment stability, negative amortization, prepayment penalties, and loan suitability. Plaintiffs asserted civil RICO claims and related state law claims under California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 based on standardized scripts, automated underwriting practices, and specific statements made to named plaintiffs. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that allegations of particular misrepresentations to individual borrowers were sufficiently pleaded to proceed under RICO while broader claims based solely on an undisclosed general scheme were not. The decision applied federal pleading standards for fraud and RICO proximate causation, citing Bridge v. Phoenix Bond to clarify that first-party reliance is not required as an element.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a consumer who purchased a 2006 Toyota Scion tC that allegedly had defects including engine issues and transmission problems; the plaintiff sued the manufacturer under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, plus a state-law claim for conversion of the purchase price. The defendant moved to dismiss the conversion claim, arguing that it sought recovery of a general sum of money not subject to conversion and was merely derivative of the warranty claim. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the complaint adequately alleged a specific, identifiable sum ($26,180.56) that the Song-Beverly Act required the defendant to refund, creating a statutory duty distinct from a mere contract obligation. The court further reasoned that the Song-Beverly Act expressly permits additional tort claims based on the same facts, so the conversion claim could proceed as an independent cause of action.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves a former law firm employee who sought long-term disability benefits under her employer's group policy for chronic fatigue syndrome after initially receiving approval but later having benefits terminated by the insurer. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, arguing that the evidence supported a finding of total disability under the policy terms, which require inability to perform the material duties of her occupation due to sickness, no other work for wage or profit, and regular doctor care. The court denied the motion, concluding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding the plaintiff's disability status based on conflicting medical evidence and evaluations. The decision emphasized that summary judgment was inappropriate where factual disputes prevented a legal determination of entitlement to benefits.

labor & employment

This case was a shareholder derivative action filed by a Ligand Pharmaceuticals stockholder against the company's officers and directors. The plaintiff sought reimbursement of bonuses and stock profits from the CEO and CFO under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act after the company restated its financials, along with a state-law breach of fiduciary duty claim. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. It held that Section 304 neither expressly nor implicitly creates a private right of action, so the federal claim failed to present a federal question. The court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claim.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Cass v. Woodford, a state prisoner serving a 17-years-to-life sentence for second-degree murder filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, claiming the California parole board violated his due process rights by repeatedly denying parole based solely on the circumstances of his commitment offense despite evidence of rehabilitation. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the petition. It held that AEDPA restricts relief to clearly established Supreme Court precedent, which has not addressed whether ongoing reliance on unchanging factors like the offense itself violates due process, and that the board's decision was not arbitrary or capricious. The court also rejected the petitioner's argument for a less deferential standard of review, confirming AEDPA applies to state court decisions upholding parole denials.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

Petitioner Ghena Iasu, a native of Eritrea and lawful permanent resident, filed a habeas corpus petition in district court challenging his removal order from the United States, asserting a claim of U.S. citizenship based on his prior naturalization application. The court granted the respondents' motion to dismiss, holding that the REAL ID Act of 2005 strips district courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions challenging removal orders and provides for exclusive review in the courts of appeals. The court reasoned that the Act applies to all removal orders, including those predating its enactment, and that an adequate substitute for habeas review exists through petitions for review in the appellate courts, satisfying constitutional requirements under the Suspension Clause. The court also denied the petitioner's request to transfer the claim to the court of appeals, as such transfer is not authorized by the Act.

immigrationprocedure

This case involved an inmate suing a correctional officer after being injured by wooden baton rounds fired to break up a fight between two inmates at Centinela State Prison in 1998. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, rejecting the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny it. The court held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because, under the circumstances—including the inmates' refusal to stop fighting despite orders and other force, the presence of many other inmates, and safety rules preventing officers from entering the yard—a reasonable officer could have believed the force used was a lawful good-faith effort to restore order.

criminal lawcivil rights

In this putative class action, plaintiffs alleged that cellular phone companies engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by charging sales tax on the full retail value of phones advertised as free or substantially discounted, in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The court denied defendants T-Mobile and Cingular's motions to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration clauses in the service agreements unconscionable as contracts of adhesion containing one-sided class action waivers. It granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the UCL and FAL claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim, and dismissed the CLRA claim for damages with prejudice.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Speyer v. Avis Rent a Car System, Inc., California residents sued national car rental companies Avis and Budget in a class action, alleging that quoting and charging airport concession recovery fees to customers who reserved vehicles in California for use at out-of-state airports violated California Civil Code § 1936(n) and constituted an unfair business practice under Business and Professions Code § 17200. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for improper venue but granted their motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with prejudice. The core reasoning was that § 1936(n) applies only to in-state rentals and does not regulate out-of-state transactions, and the defendants' disclosed practice of unbundling and passing on concession fees—permitted in most other states—did not qualify as unfair or deceptive conduct under the UCL.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a California state prison inmate who follows Islam and alleges that prison staff served him food containing pork without proper labeling on menus, leading to violations of his religious practices, and that officials failed to provide adequate mental health treatment in response. The plaintiff brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First and Eighth Amendment violations, as well as under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), against prison officials and a private food contractor. The court dismissed the RFRA claims sua sponte, dismissed all claims against the private contractor for lack of state action, dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim against the medical officer with leave to amend, and dismissed First Amendment claims against some officials with leave to amend while allowing claims against others to proceed. The core reasoning included the Supreme Court's ruling that RFRA does not apply to state actors, the absence of personal involvement by certain defendants, failure to allege deliberate indifference, and the contractor's status as a non-state actor.

criminal lawreligious libertycivil rights

The case concerned federal criminal charges against defendant Salvador Esquino Nunez arising from his Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing in 1998. The government alleged that Nunez concealed an 83-foot yacht from the bankruptcy court, sold the vessel, deposited the proceeds into a bank account, and then conducted three specific wire transfers out of that account, which formed the basis for money-laundering counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a) and a related conspiracy count. After previously dismissing Counts Ten through Thirteen, the court granted the government's motion for reconsideration in part and denied it in part. It reinstated Counts Eleven through Thirteen because those counts alleged discrete post-concealment transfers that satisfied the statutory elements, but it left Count Ten dismissed and struck three overt acts from the separate bankruptcy-fraud conspiracy count. The decision rested on the timing of the concealment relative to the charged transfers and on the scope of conduct that could properly be alleged as overt acts or as part of a money-laundering conspiracy.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves Luis A. Tinoco, a Nicaraguan citizen in DHS custody who was ordered removed from the U.S. based on his 2002 state conviction for selling methamphetamine and unlawful presence. Tinoco filed consolidated pro se habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging both the validity of his underlying conviction and the constitutionality of the immigration removal proceedings before the IJ and BIA. The court confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the habeas claims despite INA provisions directing review to the courts of appeals and jurisdiction-stripping rules for criminal aliens, denied the petition in part regarding collateral attacks on the state conviction, and ordered additional briefing on the remaining claims about the immigration proceedings themselves.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case involved a trustee of a trust who claimed ownership of a residential property in California and sought to block the IRS from seizing or encumbering it to collect her mother's unpaid taxes from 1994 and 1995. The plaintiff filed three claims against the United States, IRS officials, and two individuals, requesting injunctive relief to prevent any levy or seizure and a declaratory judgment that the government had no interest in the property. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), holding that the complaint failed to allege a proper basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction or an express waiver of sovereign immunity. It further ruled that the Anti-Injunction Act barred the claims seeking to enjoin tax collection and the Declaratory Judgment Act barred the request for declaratory relief, with no independent jurisdictional basis existing against the individual defendants.

taxespropertyfederal powerprocedure