This case involved California employees of Penske Logistics who worked as appliance delivery drivers and installers, alleging violations of state meal and rest break laws along with related wage and unfair business practices claims. Penske moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the California Labor Code provisions on meal and rest breaks were preempted by the federal FAAA Act. The court granted the motion, holding that the state laws relate to motor carriers' prices, routes, and services because they dictate specific timing and duration requirements that affect scheduling and operations, and that the safety exception to preemption did not apply. The court also granted judicial notice of certain agency materials and denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike as moot.
The case concerns a failed project to develop an outpatient surgery center and medical office building, where plaintiffs Hammes and HC alleged breaches of a letter of intent, ground lease, and space lease by defendant Tri-City Healthcare District and two of its executives, along with related claims for fraud, tortious interference, and promissory estoppel. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. It determined that certain lease contingencies were waivable by HC, allowing some breach claims to proceed, but found no triable issues supporting fraud or tortious interference claims and noted that the space lease did not create direct obligations for Tri-City absent a default by the tenant. The decision relied on contract interpretation of contingency provisions and the absence of evidence showing misrepresentations or required relationships for the tort claims.
business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability
In this case, consumers who purchased specific models of Sony televisions filed a putative class action alleging that the TVs had an inherent safety defect causing overheating, melting of components, screen discoloration, and potential combustion, rendering them unsafe for their intended use. Plaintiffs asserted eight causes of action under California law, including violations of the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Magnuson-Moss Act, as well as claims for strict liability and breach of express and implied warranties, based on Sony's alleged knowledge of the defect and failure to adequately disclose or remedy it. The court granted Sony's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The core reasoning was that the complaint failed to state plausible claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), with particular analysis showing that the one-year warranty time limits were not unconscionable under California law and that other arguments, such as reliance on Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., did not apply to extend liability.
