Richard G. Seeborg

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.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

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.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

civil rightsprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved an insurance coverage dispute between Michael Taylor Designs, Inc. (MTD), a furniture retailer, and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America regarding whether Travelers had a duty to defend MTD in an underlying lawsuit alleging trade dress infringement. The court granted MTD's motion for summary judgment in part and denied Travelers', finding that Travelers had a duty to defend from the filing of the original complaint. The policy included a Web Xtend Liability endorsement that provided coverage only for disparagement claims rather than trade dress infringement. The core reasoning was that the factual allegations in the original complaint, which described MTD's marketing materials as misleading customers about the origin and quality of furniture products, raised the possibility of a disparagement claim sufficient to trigger the duty to defend under the policy.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved two shareholder derivative actions against Oracle Corporation directors alleging breach of fiduciary duty related to overbilling the U.S. government on software sales between 1998 and 2006. The defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue based on a corporate bylaw, unilaterally adopted by the board in 2006 after the alleged conduct began, that designated the Delaware Chancery Court as the exclusive forum for such suits. The court denied the motions, holding that while contractual forum-selection clauses are generally enforceable under federal law even in adhesion contracts due to mutual consent, a bylaw imposed solely by the defendant directors without shareholder agreement—particularly for pre-existing shareholders—lacks any element of consent and thus cannot dictate venue. The opinion noted this presented a novel issue with no prior precedent on bylaw-based venue provisions for derivative claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this products liability case, plaintiff Sue Quatela alleged that a PainPump 2 infusion device manufactured by defendant Stryker Corporation caused her to develop glenohumeral chondrolysis after it was implanted following shoulder surgery, leading to claims for negligence, strict product liability, breach of express and implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment. The court granted Stryker's motion to dismiss the breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent concealment claims with leave to amend, dismissed the breach of implied warranty claim without leave to amend, and denied the motion to strike certain allegations. Dismissal of the warranty claims rested on the absence of privity between Quatela and Stryker under California law, with no applicable exception for medical devices. The misrepresentation and concealment claims were dismissed for failure to plead specific facts about what Stryker misrepresented or concealed, as opposed to legal conclusions or preempted fraud-on-the-FDA theories. The motion to strike was denied because the challenged allegations were not sufficiently redundant or immaterial under Rule 12(f).

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved homeowners who sued multiple mortgage lenders, brokers, and servicers alleging violations of TILA and RESPA disclosure requirements, fraud in loan origination through inflated income figures, and related state claims including negligence, unfair business practices, accounting, and quiet title, all in an effort to halt a trustee's sale of their property after they fell behind on payments. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in full without leave to amend. Core reasoning included the TILA rescission claims being time-barred by a three-year absolute limit, fraud allegations failing to meet Rule 9(b) particularity requirements, and the remaining claims lacking sufficient factual allegations to state plausible relief under Iqbal and Twombly standards.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved plaintiff Dr. JKL Ltd., a Hong Kong corporation, suing defendants HPC IT Education Center and Sam Yuen for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, false designation of origin, breach of two distribution agreements for JKL Chinese Typing System software, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, based on allegations that defendants failed to meet sales quotas, misappropriated customer opportunities and a security deposit, offered unauthorized free downloads, and misrepresented ownership of the product. Defendants filed a general denial answer that did not specifically address the claims and later failed to participate in case management, ADR discussions, or court hearings. The court granted the motions to strike the answer and enter default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), reasoning that the answer was inadequate, defendants had notice of the proceedings but willfully defaulted by non-appearance and non-compliance with local rules, and the well-pleaded allegations plus supporting evidence established liability and damages on the copyright, contract, and related claims. The court awarded $150,000 in copyright damages, $60,628.32 in contract damages, $7,899.50 in attorney's fees, and $440.52 in costs, declining to award treble damages under the Lanham Act due to insufficient proof.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved California consumers suing Quaker Oats Company on behalf of a putative class, claiming that labels on Chewy Bars—including a "0 grams trans fat" statement outside the nutrition facts panel, plus descriptions like "wholesome," "good source" of calcium and fiber, "whole grain oats," "no high fructose corn syrup," and "smart choices made easy"—were false or misleading because the bars contain artificial trans fats. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, corrective advertising, disgorgement, and restitution under the Lanham Act, California's False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing claims about the "0 grams trans fat" statement and some other content on express preemption grounds under federal food labeling statutes and regulations, dismissing the Lanham Act claim for lack of standing due to no competition with the defendant, and allowing remaining state-law claims regarding "wholesome" and similar marketing to proceed. Core reasoning was that state claims imposing requirements beyond federal mandates are preempted, while other statements were not subject to the same preemption or standing bars.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case arose when Douglas Burns, a diabetic, experienced a hypoglycemic emergency in a theater parking lot that police officers mistook for intoxication, leading five officers to use pepper spray, nunchakus, and a baton to subdue him before arresting him for battery on an officer and resisting arrest; an EMT later confirmed the medical condition and provided treatment. Burns sued individual officers, Redwood City, and the police department under federal and state law, alleging excessive force, unlawful arrest, and related claims, including a Monell claim against the municipality. The court granted summary judgment to Officer Perez on all claims against him, to the municipal defendants on the Monell and unlawful arrest claims, and on the request for injunctive relief, but denied summary judgment on the remaining excessive force and state-law claims against the other officers due to genuine disputes of material fact about the reasonableness of the force used and the circumstances of the encounter.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a dispute over a home in Richmond, California, where plaintiff Karol Davenport sued her original lender, loan servicer Litton, trustee C-BASS, purchaser U.S. Bank, and others after a foreclosure sale, alleging violations of federal laws including TILA and RESPA as well as various California statutory and common law claims related to loan origination, disclosures, and the foreclosure process. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff's allegations failed to state viable claims, including deficiencies in pleading fraud with particularity, lack of timely disclosures under TILA and RESPA, and insufficient facts to support state law causes of action such as those under Civil Code sections 2923.5 and 2924 or unfair competition claims.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

Surf and Sand, LLC, owner of a mobile home park in Capitola subject to the city's rent control ordinance and park closure ordinance, sued after the city denied its permit application to close the park entirely. The owner alleged that the ordinances created an unconstitutional taking and other violations by preventing it from realizing the full value of its property through closure or subdivision, while tenants captured premiums from below-market rents. The court granted the motion to dismiss the public takings claim without prejudice because it was not ripe, but denied the motion as to the remaining claims, allowing them to proceed on an as-applied basis since the closure application process had been completed and rejected. Individual defendants were also not dismissed from the state law claims.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a dispute over three patents for valves in scuba diving regulators, held by defendant Two Forty Deuce and licensed to American Underwater Products (Oceanic). Plaintiff Aqua-Lung sought declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity, while Oceanic counterclaimed for patent infringement plus fraud and trade secret misappropriation. The court granted summary judgment to Oceanic on infringement of the '674 Patent (for two product lines) based on the accused devices matching the claim limitations for an automatic closure device as construed, but granted summary judgment to Aqua-Lung on non-infringement of the '609 and '958 Patents because those devices lacked the required gas-pressure activation mechanism. The court also granted Aqua-Lung summary judgment on the fraud counterclaim due to lack of evidence but denied it on invalidity and trade secret misappropriation due to factual disputes.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In this trademark infringement case, RingCentral, Inc. sued Bill Quimby and TollFreeNumbers.com, Inc. for registering domain names incorporating its registered marks "RingCentral" and "1800RingCentral," diverting web traffic to defendants' competing toll-free number services, and making other unauthorized uses of the marks. The court adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation granting default judgment on the trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, false advertising, and cybersquatting claims after defendants failed to appear or respond. It awarded $400,000 in statutory damages and attorneys' fees, denied lost profits and certain costs, and entered a permanent injunction barring defendants from further use of the marks, while authorizing but not compelling the domain registrar to transfer the disputed domains. The decision rested on the well-pleaded allegations being deemed admitted due to default and the applicability of Lanham Act remedies to the established violations.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Botelho v. U.S. Bank, N.A., homeowner Henry Botelho sued the bank as trustee for his mortgage note, seeking rescission of the 2006 loan under the Truth in Lending Act based on allegedly deficient notices of his right to cancel that lacked expiration dates. U.S. Bank moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), contending that Botelho failed to state a claim because he did not allege a present ability to tender the loan proceeds back to the lender. The court denied the motion, holding that such an allegation is unnecessary at the pleading stage. The decision relied on Ninth Circuit precedent in Yamamoto v. Bank of New York, which indicates that tender considerations are addressed based on case-specific circumstances and evidence rather than as a fixed pleading requirement, consistent with the liberal standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In McCrary v. Gutierrez, plaintiff Homer T. McCrary challenged a decision by the National Marine Fisheries Service denying his petition under the Endangered Species Act to delist the coho salmon population south of San Francisco, which he argued was not native to the area. The case proceeded under the Administrative Procedure Act, with McCrary moving to complete and compel production of the administrative record by adding certain emails, external communications, and genetic data that he claimed showed the agency failed to consider all relevant factors. The court denied the motion, holding that an agency's certified administrative record is entitled to a presumption of regularity and completeness absent clear evidence falling into one of the narrow exceptions, such as bad faith or failure to consider relevant factors, which McCrary did not sufficiently demonstrate. The decision rested on Ninth Circuit precedents limiting judicial review to the record before the agency and restricting discovery in APA cases.

environmentprocedure

The case concerns Facebook's allegations that ConnectU scraped millions of email addresses from its social networking website using login credentials from registered users and then sent unsolicited commercial emails to those users. Facebook asserted seven causes of action, including violations of California Penal Code section 502(c), common law misappropriation, California Business and Professions Code sections 17529.4 and 17538.45, and the federal CAN-SPAM Act. On ConnectU's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, rejecting dismissal of certain claims on res judicata grounds from prior state court proceedings, finding the misappropriation claim likely preempted by federal copyright law because the scraped data did not constitute protectable subject matter, and granting leave to amend some claims while noting preemption barriers.

business & regulatorycriminal lawproceduretorts & liability