Christina A. Snyder

In this case, warehouse workers filed a class action lawsuit against Schneider Logistics and related companies alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and California labor laws, including failures to pay minimum wage and overtime, provide meal and rest breaks, and maintain accurate payroll records. Plaintiffs sought a temporary restraining order requiring the defendants to immediately comply with federal and state recordkeeping and disclosure obligations. The court granted the TRO and issued an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not follow, finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, would suffer irreparable harm without relief, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored the injunction. The court also ordered Schneider Logistics to identify the specific entity operating the relevant facility and waived the bond requirement due to plaintiffs' financial circumstances.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a dispute between two competing Chinese-Vietnamese food supply companies over the design of their rice stick packages, each showing a bowl of food with similar yellow backgrounds and red trim. Plaintiff Kim Seng sued for copyright infringement, trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act, and related unfair competition claims, asserting ownership of the package design and an underlying food arrangement. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. It reasoned that the copyright was invalid because the food arrangement was not protectable subject matter and ownership of the photograph was not properly transferred in writing under 17 U.S.C. § 204(a), while the trade dress lacked inherent distinctiveness or secondary meaning.

propertybusiness & regulatory

The case involved Rock River Communications, a music producer, suing Universal Music Group after UMG sent cease-and-desist letters to distributors regarding Rock River's remixed recordings of pre-1972 Bob Marley tracks, asserting exclusive rights and causing distributors to halt sales. Rock River alleged antitrust violations under the Sherman and Clayton Acts, a DMCA violation, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; the first three claims had already been dismissed. On the remaining tort claim, the court granted UMG's motion for summary judgment, finding that Rock River failed to produce evidence establishing a valid chain of title or licensing rights to the recordings, as its agreements with San Juan did not demonstrate San Juan's authority to license the tracks and pre-1972 recordings fall outside federal copyright presumptions.

business & regulatorypropertytorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Franciska Susilo sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (successor to Wachovia), ETS Services, and related entities over the nonjudicial foreclosure of her Los Angeles condominium after she defaulted on a $620,750 loan. She alleged that defendants failed to properly serve foreclosure notices, misrepresented the amount needed to reinstate the loan, rejected her tendered reinstatement check, and proceeded with a trustee's sale despite her efforts to cure the default, asserting eleven claims including negligence, breach of contract, fraud, wrongful foreclosure, and violation of California's unfair competition law. The court denied most motions to dismiss the claims against Wells Fargo, finding the allegations sufficient to state viable causes of action under California law, but granted dismissal of certain claims against ETS with or without prejudice; it also denied the motion to strike references to punitive damages. The rulings turned on whether the complaint adequately pleaded the elements of each claim, such as particularity for fraud and the existence of a duty or contract breach, while taking judicial notice of recorded foreclosure documents.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Osama Ahmed Fahmy's claims that defendants including Jay-Z infringed his copyright interests in the Egyptian musical composition 'Khosara, Khosara' by using elements of it in the song 'Big Pimpin'' and related works without authorization, along with a dismissed state unfair competition claim. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to exclude testimony from defendants' expert on Egyptian law. On the motion for partial summary judgment, the court granted it in part and denied it in part, finding triable issues of fact regarding the scope and validity of any licenses under Egyptian law for reproduction or adaptation rights, while ruling that moral rights claims under Egyptian law are not elements of the U.S. copyright infringement claims and do not alter the license analysis absent triable facts.

propertyprocedure

Sony Corporation sued LG Electronics U.S.A. and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A. for direct, induced, and contributory infringement of eight patents covering features in mobile telephones and headsets, with allegations that LG had received actual notice of the patents. LG moved to dismiss the first amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the pleading lacked sufficient factual detail to meet the plausibility standards of Twombly and Iqbal, especially for induced, contributory, and willful infringement claims, or alternatively for a more definite statement. The court denied the motion, holding that the complaint adequately identified the specific patents, accused products, and notice to LG, thereby stating plausible claims, and that additional specificity was not required at the pleading stage and could be obtained through discovery. The court further concluded that the complaint was not so vague as to prevent LG from preparing a responsive pleading.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerns a lawsuit by the mother of a 13-year-old student with autism and language impairments against a California school district, alleging violations of the IDEA and related federal and state disability laws stemming from disputes over the student's IEP, grade placement, and related services. The district moved to dismiss the first amended complaint, arguing primarily that a settlement agreement signed by the mother on the first day of school barred the claims by waiving all issues through June 2010 and acknowledging that the IEP provided a FAPE. The court analyzed whether the agreement was enforceable, noting the absence of required prior written notice under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(3), the circumstances of its execution, and precedent such as Somoza v. New York City Department of Education, and concluded that the agreement did not bar the claims, that the mother could assert associational claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, and that the substantive claims under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and parallel state laws could proceed together.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

This case involves federal drug charges against defendant Timoteo Gomez for two counts of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The court addressed multiple pretrial motions filed by both parties, including the defendant's request for limited attorney-conducted voir dire, the government's motions to admit prior convictions under FRE 609 and to exclude hearsay references to punishment or sympathy, and the defendant's motion to suppress statements made during his arrest. After an evidentiary hearing with testimony and exhibits, the court analyzed the circumstances of the traffic stop, the timing of Miranda warnings, and whether a two-step interrogation occurred, concluding that the defendant was in custody at certain points and applying relevant Supreme Court precedents like Seibert to determine admissibility. The rulings also considered factors for balancing probative value against prejudice for prior convictions and rules governing witness examination and completeness of statements.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the Export-Import Bank of the United States suing United California Discount Corp. (UCDC) for wrongful dishonor of two standby letters of credit, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. These arose after UCDC issued the letters to support a revolving loan from UPS Capital to Ashford International for an export contract with Jordan's Ministry of Education, which Ex-Im had guaranteed; UPS assigned its rights to Ex-Im after Ashford defaulted and UCDC twice dishonored UPS's draws, citing discrepancies but not the failure to present the original letters of credit. The court granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. It reasoned that under California Commercial Code § 5108(c) and ISP98 § 5.03(a), UCDC was precluded from relying on discrepancies not stated in its timely notices of dishonor, while noting that the letters' terms required presentation of the originals and that other factual or legal disputes remained unresolved at summary judgment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Barry Rosen suing defendant Hosting Services, Inc. (HSI), an internet service provider, for copyright infringement under federal law after HSI failed to promptly remove photos from a hosted website following Rosen's DMCA takedown notice. HSI filed a counterclaim alleging that Rosen violated the DMCA by making a material misrepresentation in his notice and sought declarations regarding its non-infringement and safe harbor eligibility. The court granted HSI's motion for summary judgment on Rosen's complaint, ruling that the notice was defective because it misidentified the copyrighted material (referencing photos of Daisy Fuentes rather than the actual subject, Amy Weber), so HSI had no imputed knowledge of infringement and qualified for DMCA safe harbor protection under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c). The court denied Rosen's motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim, finding that whether the notice's errors amounted to a knowing material misrepresentation could not be determined as a matter of law from the existing record.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Watson Allison, a California death row inmate, challenging his state convictions and sentence in the 1980s murder and robbery of Leonard Wesley Polk. The district court denied the petition as to Allison's convictions for robbery and first-degree felony murder. However, the court granted relief regarding the special circumstance finding that the murder was committed during a robbery and the resulting death sentence, ordering the state either to provide a new trial on those issues or to vacate the findings and resentence Allison under state law and the Constitution. The decision was based on separate memoranda analyzing the remaining claims in the petition.

criminal law

In Larsen v. Adams, the petitioner filed a federal habeas corpus petition challenging his state criminal conviction on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging that his attorney failed to investigate and call exculpatory witnesses to the incident. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after de novo review, finding that the petitioner had established actual innocence under Schlup v. Delo to overcome procedural bars and had shown both deficient performance and prejudice under Strickland v. Washington based on live witness testimony. The court rejected the respondent's objections regarding hearsay declarations and other evidentiary issues, determining that the findings relied primarily on credible testimony rather than untested declarations. It granted the petition in full and remanded the case for a new trial within ninety days.

criminal lawprocedure

The case is a federal habeas corpus petition filed by death row inmate Ronald Deere challenging his convictions for multiple murders and death sentence on grounds that he was incompetent to plead guilty, received ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his competency and plea, and was subjected to an inadequate competency evaluation. Following a Ninth Circuit remand for an evidentiary hearing on competency claims, the district court considered evidence from the hearing, expert declarations, and briefing after the petitioner declined further psychiatric examinations. The court granted the petition in part, concluding that counsel failed to adequately investigate and present evidence of Deere's mental impairments and that the original competency determination was constitutionally deficient.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by petitioner Blumberg challenging his 1998 California state conviction for conspiracy to commit murder, attempted murder, and assault with a semiautomatic firearm, along with gang and firearm enhancements, resulting in a sentence of 26 years to life. The district court, adopting the magistrate judge's amended report and recommendation after an evidentiary hearing and review of the record, granted the petition on grounds including Brady violations involving suppressed exculpatory evidence, such as a police officer's conversation with a witness about gang-related tagging, and cumulative error. The court ordered that the petitioner be released from custody unless new trial proceedings commence within 90 days. The reasoning centered on the prosecution's failure to disclose evidence favorable to the accused that undermined confidence in the verdict, particularly regarding the credibility of a key prosecution witness.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a claim by D.L. Edmonson Selective Service Inc. against LCW Automotive Corp. for breach of an express warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act arising from alleged defects in a limousine that LCW had converted and that the plaintiff had leased for commercial use. After a bench trial, the court issued findings of fact detailing the vehicle's conversion in Mexico, delivery and inspection in Texas, subsequent repair attempts in California and Texas, and the mileage and warranty status at relevant times. The court set forth conclusions of law confirming that the Song-Beverly Act applies to leased goods, outlining the buyer's rights to repair, replacement, or restitution, the applicable presumptions, and the remedies including potential civil penalties.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved pharmacy associations suing California officials to block reductions in Medi-Cal reimbursement rates to pharmacies, which averaged slightly over 4% and resulted from First DataBank's changes to Average Wholesale Price calculations following a separate class-action settlement. Plaintiffs claimed the reductions violated the Medicaid Act's quality-of-care and equal-access requirements under 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A). The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. It reasoned that the reductions arose from private pricing adjustments rather than state-mandated changes requiring a state plan amendment or cost studies, that federal regulations did not mandate additional findings, and that the requested relief would alter rather than preserve the status quo.

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case involves Enrique Torres's federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1992 California convictions for second-degree murder and attempted robbery, along with related firearm enhancements and his life sentence. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, dismissing the petition as untimely. The AEDPA imposes a one-year statute of limitations that began running on April 24, 1996, for pre-AEDPA convictions, giving Torres until April 24, 1997, to file; his numerous state habeas petitions starting in December 2003 did not toll the expired period, and even with potential equitable tolling for language barriers through 2003, the federal filing in 2008 remained untimely.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by California state prisoner Daniel Larsen challenging his 1999 felony conviction for possession of a dagger. Petitioner alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to locate and present exculpatory witnesses or evidence of third-party culpability, but the petition was filed years after the one-year AEDPA statute of limitations had expired. Respondent moved to dismiss the petition as untimely, leading to an evidentiary hearing on whether Petitioner could establish actual innocence under the Schlup gateway exception. After hearing consistent testimony from multiple witnesses that a third party had discarded the weapon, the court found Petitioner satisfied the actual innocence standard. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss and ordered further proceedings on the merits of the constitutional claim.

criminal lawprocedure

Ormco Corp. sued Align Technology, Inc. for infringing four patents related to digital orthodontic treatment planning and manufacturing of aligners, including the '444 patent. Following partial summary judgments, a Federal Circuit remand, and a jury trial on the remaining claims, the jury found that Align infringed the asserted claims of the '444 patent, that the claims were not anticipated or obvious, and that the patent was not unenforceable. Align moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing insufficient evidence on infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), invalidity, and prosecution laches. The court denied the motion in full, holding that the jury's findings were supported by substantial evidence regarding material changes in the manufacturing process and the validity of the claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Ormco's suit against Align for infringing claims in the '444 patent related to orthodontic technology, after earlier rulings on other patents in the family were affirmed in part on appeal. Following a jury trial finding infringement and validity, the court addressed Align's equitable defenses of prosecution laches and unclean hands in this bench ruling. The court ruled for Ormco, concluding that the roughly ten-year delay in adding the asserted claims was not unreasonable because Ormco had been actively prosecuting a chain of related applications since 1992. It further held that Align failed to show prejudice or that Ormco acted with bad faith, noting that filing or amending claims to cover a competitor's product is not inherently inequitable.

business & regulatoryprocedure