In this putative class action, plaintiff Marie Gaudin sued Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., alleging that a Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) trial period plan formed a binding contract obligating Saxon to evaluate her for and provide a permanent mortgage modification if conditions were met; after making reduced payments, Saxon allegedly rejected her application, declared default, and pursued foreclosure. Saxon moved to dismiss, arguing that Gaudin's prior Chapter 13 bankruptcy barred the claims via standing, res judicata, or estoppel, and that the complaint failed to state viable claims. The court rejected the bankruptcy arguments, finding the claims concerned post-confirmation conduct and did not relitigate the original debt or plan confirmation. It granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend, concluding that while the trial plan document suggested an enforceable contract, the plaintiff had not adequately pled breach, breach of the implied covenant, FDCPA violations, or an independent unfair competition claim.
In Cohen v. Facebook, Inc., plaintiffs filed a putative class action claiming that Facebook misappropriated their names and profile pictures by displaying them in promotional notices for the "Friend Finder" service on other users' home pages, without consent and sometimes for users who had never used the service. Facebook moved to dismiss, arguing both that its user agreements permitted the practice and that plaintiffs had not shown any cognizable injury. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the allegations failed to establish injury because the notices appeared only to the plaintiffs' existing Facebook friends, who already had access to the names and pictures, and because plaintiffs alleged no commercial interests in their likenesses. Dismissal was without prejudice, allowing leave to amend within 20 days.
In this case, plaintiff RingCentral obtained a default judgment for over $432,000 in statutory damages and fees against defendants TollFreeNumbers.Com and Bill Quimby for alleged Lanham Act trademark infringement involving domain names that used RingCentral's marks. Defendants moved to vacate the default judgment and set aside the entry of default, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction and other grounds. The court granted the motion, finding that defendants' failure to properly respond did not reflect bad faith manipulation of the process and that substantial questions existed about imposing the full statutory penalties outside the default judgment context. The court upheld personal jurisdiction based on the defendants' letter response and imposed conditions requiring defendants to pay RingCentral's reasonable attorney fees related to the default judgment motion as a condition of vacating the judgment.
In this case, plaintiff Patrick Vinatieri sued Napa County and several sheriff's deputies, alleging that the officers showed favoritism toward his neighbors during a 2008 altercation in which the neighbors assaulted him, and that this stemmed from a long-standing family dispute and improper alliances. Vinatieri brought six claims under the U.S. Constitution, including equal protection violations, deliberate indifference to medical needs, and multiple conspiracy claims involving the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, plus a Monell claim against the county. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in full under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding that the allegations lacked sufficient factual support to state plausible claims for relief, such as evidence of a municipal policy or tacit agreement to violate rights. With the exception of the medical needs claim, the court allowed Vinatieri to file an amended complaint within thirty days.
This case is a putative shareholder class action alleging that SunPower Corporation and its executives made false and misleading public statements about the company's financial results due to improper accounting entries in its Philippines operations that understated costs of goods sold. Plaintiffs brought claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, against the company, insiders, directors, and underwriters. The court granted the motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims, finding that the complaint failed to allege facts supporting a strong inference of scienter as required under Tellabs, because the allegations of manual journal entries did not make fraudulent intent by management more compelling than innocent explanations. The Securities Act claims were dismissed for lack of pleaded standing as to some offerings and damages as to others.
The case involved plaintiffs, including family-owned entities like SFRC and Donahue O’Shea LLC, who invested in White Sands Estates, a Hawaii real estate development, after advice from defendant Ed Broda of Aspire, affiliated with PWS; they sued under the Securities Act of 1933 and state law claims including unfair competition, alleging the investments were unregistered securities. Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the investments were not securities, they were not statutory sellers, or the offerings were exempt, and also sought dismissal of certain tort claims. The court granted the motion as to all claims by the O’Shea Trust and Tom O’Shea for lack of any connection to the defendants, and on the UCL claim due to insufficient evidence of vicarious liability or personal participation, but denied it on the remaining claims because material factual disputes existed regarding whether the investments qualified as securities under the Howey test, whether Broda and related entities were sellers, and whether any exemption applied.
