John F. Walter

The case involved major movie studios suing WTV Systems and its operator over the Zediva service, which rented access to copyrighted films by streaming them over the internet from physical DVDs played on the company's servers. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. It found a likelihood of success on the copyright infringement claim because Zediva publicly performed the works by transmitting them to multiple users under the Copyright Act's transmit clause, distinguishing the service from private or licensed performances and from the studios' authorized distribution windows. The court also determined that the plaintiffs showed a likelihood of irreparable harm from interference with their licensing arrangements and that the balance of equities and public interest supported injunctive relief.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Samuel Millan under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 2005 decision by the California Board of Parole Hearings denying him parole after his 1986 guilty plea to second-degree murder and sentence of 16 years to life. Millan had pursued habeas petitions in California state courts, but the California Supreme Court denied his petition with a citation to People v. Duvall, indicating the claims lacked sufficient factual particularity. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting the respondent's motion to dismiss the petition without prejudice on the ground that Millan had failed to exhaust his state court remedies by not refiling an amended petition with adequate detail. The court also denied a certificate of appealability, finding no substantial showing of a constitutional violation or procedural error.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed by licensed attorney Eric Jacobson against California state officials, including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, challenging aspects of the state's parole revocation system on behalf of parolees and asserting that Jacobson himself was removed from the attorney appointment list in retaliation for his representation of parolees and criticisms of parole officials. After multiple amendments and partial dismissals, the remaining claims by Jacobson concerned alleged retaliatory termination (Claim Twelve) and related state law claims (Claims Thirteen and Eighteen). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment while denying Jacobson's, resulting in dismissal of Claim Twelve with prejudice and the other two claims without prejudice. The core reasoning was that Jacobson failed to produce evidence creating a triable issue of fact showing that any defendant was personally involved in the termination decision or acted with a retaliatory motive based on protected speech or conduct.

civil rightscriminal lawfree speechprocedure

In Champion v. Murphy, a state prisoner proceeding pro se sued a prison dentist under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the dentist provided inadequate dental care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, retaliated against the prisoner for filing grievances in violation of the First Amendment, and discriminated against him on the basis of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The district court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in part, ruling in the defendant's favor on the deliberate indifference and race discrimination claims while denying the prisoner's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found no genuine issue of material fact on those claims because the evidence showed the dentist had provided treatment without the required culpable state of mind and there was no proof of discriminatory intent or disparate treatment based on race. The retaliation claim remained unresolved because the defendant had not addressed it in the motion. The court ordered the parties to file new summary judgment motions on the retaliation claim within thirty days.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

In Tirado v. Warden, a California state prisoner filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his convictions for two counts of spousal rape, arguing that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of reasonable but mistaken belief in consent. The district court, adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after de novo review, dismissed the petition with prejudice. The core reasoning was that AEDPA limits review to whether the state court's decision was unreasonable, and the record lacked substantial evidence of equivocal conduct supporting a good-faith mistaken belief in consent, particularly where the victim's resistance was overcome by force; thus, no jury instruction was required under state law as interpreted in People v. Williams and People v. Mayberry.

criminal lawprocedure

This case was an ERISA action brought by plaintiff Cari Garrison against Aetna Life Insurance Company and Boeing's employee health and welfare benefit plan challenging the cancellation of her long-term disability benefits after she stopped working due to back surgery for degenerative disc disease. The court held a bench trial to review Aetna's decision under the plan, which defined total disability for the initial 30-month period as the inability, due to injury or disease, to perform the material duties of the plaintiff's own occupation as it exists in the general economy. After considering the evidence of the plaintiff's medical history, job demands as Director of Supplier Management, initial approval of short-term and long-term disability benefits, and the plan's terms, the court issued detailed findings of fact on the onset of disability, occupational classification, and relevant policy provisions to determine eligibility.

labor & employmenthealthcare

In this case, broker-dealer ONESCO sued investors who had sought arbitration before the NASD over losses from investments in the Lancorp Fund arranged by its former registered representative, seeking a declaration that no obligation to arbitrate existed. The court granted the investors' motion to compel arbitration under NASD Rules 10101 and 10301(a), dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and denied the request for a preliminary injunction as moot. The court reasoned that the NASD Code creates an enforceable arbitration agreement for customer disputes arising in connection with a member's business, that the investors qualified as customers because the actual investment and alleged supervisory failures occurred after the representative joined ONESCO, and that the claims therefore fell within the rule's scope. The decision rested on the timing of the representative's affiliation and the broad language of the NASD rules rather than any separate written contract between the parties.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved the United States suing real estate investors Morteza Eghbal and Marilyn Trujillo under the False Claims Act for submitting false HUD-1 Addendums on 27 HUD-insured mortgage loans, in which they certified they had not provided down payments when they actually had, leading to defaults and HUD paying out insurance claims. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, finding the defendants liable and awarding damages of approximately $2.8 million (offset by recoveries and restitution) plus minimum civil penalties. The core reasoning was that the defendants' prior criminal convictions for conspiracy and false statements established the falsity of the certifications, which were material to HUD insuring the loans, and that the misrepresentations had a sufficient causal connection to the subsequent defaults and losses under FCA precedent.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case was an ERISA action brought by plaintiff Sandra Frost against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and a Wells Fargo long-term disability plan, challenging MetLife's termination of her LTD benefits after initially approving them. The plaintiff claimed ongoing disability due to pain, cognitive issues, and other symptoms starting in 2002. The court decided in favor of the defendants, holding that MetLife did not abuse its discretion in finding that the plaintiff was no longer disabled under the plan's definition after the initial 24-month period. The core reasoning was that medical records and opinions from multiple treating neurologists and other physicians provided sufficient evidence that her symptoms did not meet the plan's criteria for inability to work, including tests showing normal function and suggestions of possible functional overlay or conversion disorder.

labor & employmenthealthcare

In Coulombe v. Jolly, plaintiffs including a California wine consumer and an out-of-state retailer challenged California Business and Professions Code § 23661.2, which limits wine shipments from non-reciprocal states and caps shipments at two cases per month, alleging that the law discriminates against out-of-state sellers in violation of the Commerce Clause and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to allege an injury-in-fact sufficient to establish Article III standing, noting that their cited precedents such as General Motors Corp. v. Tracy did not support standing for consumers or out-of-state retailers in this context and that the alleged harms were too speculative or indirect.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

In Gillie v. Yates, a state prisoner convicted in 1997 of second-degree burglary and petty theft with priors under California's Three Strikes law, resulting in a 29-years-to-life sentence, filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in 2005 challenging his convictions and sentence after multiple unsuccessful state habeas petitions. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, dismissing the petition and action as untimely. The core reasoning was that the one-year AEDPA statute of limitations had expired years earlier following the conclusion of direct review in 1998, the prisoner's successive state habeas filings did not toll the limitations period because they were denied on the merits or as successive, and no basis existed for equitable tolling or other exceptions.

criminal lawprocedure

In Grenell v. UPS Health and Welfare Package, the plaintiff, a former UPS driver covered by the company's ERISA-regulated health and welfare plan, sued after his claim for short-term disability benefits was denied. The plaintiff became disabled in September 2001 due to back and neck pain but did not report the claim to the plan administrator until February 2002, well after the plan's 30-day filing deadline, and he did not appeal the denial. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), ruling that ERISA requires plaintiffs to exhaust the plan's internal administrative remedies, including timely filing and appeals, before filing suit in federal court.

labor & employment

This case involves a dispute between plaintiffs SMC Promotions, Inc., eMerchantClub, LLC, and Specialty Merchandise Corporation and defendants Official Site Builders Corporation and Mark Busnelli, Sr., who compete in selling customized websites to SMC members for online sales of specialty merchandise. Plaintiffs alleged claims including copyright infringement, false designation under the Lanham Act, unfair competition, and breach of contract, stemming from defendants' use of the "SMC" name, similar domain names like SellSMC.com, and SMC's copyrighted catalog content. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a likelihood of success on the trademark claims due to evidence of consumer confusion from defendants' use of the SMC name and marks in the same market, along with irreparable harm, while noting defendants' voluntary cessation of some domain uses.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, three domain name registrars (Dotster, Go Daddy Software, and eNom) sued ICANN to block implementation of Verisign's proposed Wait List Service (WLS), a subscription-based system for registering expired .com and .net domain names that would compete directly with the plaintiffs' own wait-listing products offered under their Registrar Accreditation Agreements. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The decision rested on the plaintiffs' failure to show a likelihood of irreparable injury, as declarations about potential harm to business, goodwill, and reputation were deemed conclusory and speculative, the affected services represented only a small and recent portion of the plaintiffs' overall operations, and there was no evidence that any losses would threaten the viability of their entire businesses.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a trademark dispute in which the band Echo Drain sued Jason Newsted, Echobrain, and Chophouse Records, alleging nine claims including reverse confusion under the Lanham Act, cybersquatting, false designation of origin, common law trademark infringement, and related state-law claims over the similar band names. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that Echo Drain, a local Texas act with minimal commercial activity and revenue, failed to establish a protectable trademark interest beyond the Dallas-Fort Worth area or any likelihood of confusion with the nationally known Echobrain; it also found no evidence of bad-faith intent to profit for the cybersquatting claim. The decision rested on undisputed facts about the parties' respective uses, geographic scopes, and lack of expansion plans.

business & regulatory