Oliver Winston Wanger

This case concerned challenges by the San Joaquin River Group Authority to the National Marine Fisheries Service's 2011 approval of Pacific Fishery Management Council measures allowing commercial and recreational fishing for Sacramento River fall-run Chinook salmon. The plaintiff alleged violations of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and APA due to inadequate accounting for scientific uncertainty and bias in abundance estimates, as well as NEPA violations for failing to assess compliance with environmental laws and consider a reasonable range of alternatives in the environmental assessment; standing was asserted based on potential future regulatory burdens from reduced fish escapement. The court applied the APA's arbitrary and capricious standard, emphasizing deference to agency expertise on scientific and technical matters unless the agency failed to consider essential factors or offered an explanation contrary to the evidence. The opinion reasoned that the agency had considered and adjusted for uncertainty and bias in its decision-making process, and that this satisfied legal requirements without needing further analysis.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatory

This case is a patent infringement action in which Duhn Oil Tool sued Cooper Cameron for infringing its '925 Patent on a wellhead isolation tool (frac mandrel) compatible with existing wellhead components using dual lock screws. A jury found Cameron liable for infringement and contributory infringement but determined that several patent claims were invalid, and it returned an advisory verdict on Cameron's inequitable conduct counterclaim. The court addressed post-trial motions for entry of judgment and judgment as a matter of law, focusing on the scope and consistency of the jury's special verdicts regarding anticipation by prior art, the effect of the added 'wherein clause' in claim 1, and whether the findings could be reconciled without a new trial. The decision analyzes the jury instructions, verdict form, and evidence on obviousness and anticipation under patent law standards to determine the appropriate judgment.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a multi-phase toxic tort lawsuit brought by over 2,000 plaintiffs against former owners of a closed cooling tower manufacturing facility and related public entities, alleging property damage and health effects from hexavalent chromium and arsenic contamination released via long-term discharges and an April 2006 flood. In Phase 1, the jury addressed general exposure issues, including whether contaminants reached locations where plaintiffs could have been exposed through surface water, air, or flood pathways. Following the verdicts, the BAC Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence on exposure pathways and corporate liability. The court granted the motion in part, entering judgment for defendants on the surface water pathway via the El Capitan canal from 1992 to 2006, because plaintiffs presented no evidence of hexavalent chromium in the canal after 1991 and relied only on total chromium measurements or pre-1991 data, while denying the motion on other pathways and issues.

environmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

This case involves a challenge by the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta and Kern County Water Agency to FEMA's administration of the National Flood Insurance Program in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, claiming that actions such as certifying community eligibility, issuing Letters of Map Changes, enforcing floodplain management criteria, and providing flood insurance incentivize development that harms listed species including Chinook salmon and delta smelt, thereby requiring consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. FEMA moved for partial summary judgment on grounds including statute of limitations barring challenges to minimum criteria, lack of any effect on species from LOMCs, exclusive statutory review procedures for map changes, and the non-discretionary nature of issuing insurance policies under the precedent of National Association of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife. The court reviewed evidentiary objections to public records, noted plaintiffs' concessions that regulatory amendment authority alone does not trigger consultation, and examined whether FEMA retains sufficient discretion in ongoing implementation to require ESA consultation, distinguishing conditional and final map revisions.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

This case arose from a fatal collision between an Amtrak train and a vehicle driven by the plaintiff's wife, resulting in the deaths of the wife and two children; the plaintiff sued Amtrak, BNSF, the State of California, and others for negligence and related claims. After a jury trial, the jury found Amtrak negligent (causing the harm), attributed 50% comparative fault to the driver, awarded economic and non-economic damages, and the County of Stanislaus had settled earlier for $800,000. On post-trial motions, the court addressed the proper amount of judgment under California Code of Civil Procedure § 877 and Civil Code § 1431.2 (Proposition 51), which separates joint-and-several liability for economic damages from several liability for non-economic damages, and considered whether punitive damages were supported. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment in part and denied it in part, and denied Amtrak's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on punitive damages, reasoning that the evidence of the engineer's conduct permitted an inference of conscious disregard sufficient to submit the issue to the jury.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involves Maria Escriba suing her employer Foster Poultry Farms after her termination in December 2007, alleging interference with her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), and related claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Escriba sought leave to travel to Guatemala to care for her ailing father, using two weeks of vacation time, but disputed facts center on whether her father had a serious medical condition, the adequacy and timeliness of her notice to the employer, and whether she properly invoked FMLA-protected leave or complied with company rules. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on the interference claims and the employer's affirmative defenses, evaluating evidence such as medical records, conversations with supervisors, and whether the plaintiff's declaration created genuine issues of material fact without being a sham affidavit. Core reasoning focused on the standards for FMLA eligibility, notice requirements, distinctions between interference and discrimination claims, and the admissibility of conflicting testimony under evidence rules.

labor & employmentfamily lawprocedure

This case concerns claims brought by the survivors of Zachary Atkinson against Tulare County and Detective William Seymour following Atkinson's death during a September 2008 encounter. Atkinson was stopped after Detective Seymour suspected his motorcycle was stolen; the stop escalated into a physical struggle involving a carotid restraint and multiple gunshots, resulting in Atkinson's death from a back wound. Plaintiffs asserted federal civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, along with state-law claims for failure to provide medical care, negligence, and battery. The court ruled on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and related applications, holding that any excessive-force analysis must consider the totality of the circumstances rather than isolated acts and confirming that the county sheriff qualifies as the final policymaker for municipal-liability purposes under state law.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

The case involves California plaintiffs who are beneficiaries of a county employees' retirement association suing an out-of-state actuarial firm and its California employee for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty arising from alleged manipulation of pension funding calculations and false certifications. After the case was removed to federal court on diversity grounds, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint with specific factual allegations against the employee and renewed their motion to remand, asserting that the employee's presence destroyed complete diversity. The court granted the renewed motion to remand, holding that the new pleadings adequately stated potential claims against the employee for fraud-related conduct and aiding and abetting that could subject him to individual liability under California law, so he was not a sham defendant whose joinder could be disregarded.

proceduretorts & liability

This case concerns claims by agricultural landowners and operators in California's San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project that the Bureau of Reclamation violated multiple provisions of federal reclamation law by failing to prioritize delivery of irrigation water, exercise water rights for project lands, and sell water to recoup project costs, instead allowing water to be used for other purposes. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the APA, arguing that the 1960 San Luis Act and earlier reclamation statutes mandate irrigation as the principal purpose of the Unit. The court addressed cross-motions on sovereign immunity, subject matter jurisdiction, standing, exhaustion, timeliness, and the merits of whether the statutes imposed nondiscretionary duties on the Bureau or instead preserved its discretion to manage the CVP as an integrated system. Relying on prior precedent interpreting the same statutes, the court rejected the view that the laws assigned exclusive water rights or limited the Bureau's management authority.

environmentfederal powerbusiness & regulatoryproperty

This case involved parents suing a school district and its staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state laws, alleging failure to provide reasonable accommodations for their child's severe nut allergy, retaliation after the child suffered an allergic reaction at a school event, and interference with familial rights through false reports that led to the child's removal by child protective services without a warrant. The court addressed defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, granting dismissal of count three of the seventh cause of action (a § 1983 retaliation claim) without prejudice and count one of the eleventh cause of action (a claim under California Civil Code § 52.1) with prejudice. The core reasoning was that the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to state plausible claims, such as failing to show oppressive intent by the responsible parties or elements of a viable First Amendment retaliation claim under § 1983, while permitting amendment on other counts.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

This case involved an employment dispute in which plaintiff David Jadwin, a doctor at Kern Medical Center, alleged that Kern County and various employees retaliated and discriminated against him after he engaged in protected activities and took medical leave, in violation of the FMLA, CFRA, FEHA, and the Due Process Clause. A jury found for Jadwin on multiple claims of retaliation, disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and failure to engage in an interactive process, awarding him $505,457 in damages, while the court separately found a due process violation but awarded only nominal damages. The opinion addresses post-trial motions, including the plaintiff's requests to amend the judgment for costs and prejudgment interest and for over $3.9 million in attorneys' fees under federal and state fee-shifting statutes, as well as the defendants' motions for a new trial and to amend the judgment regarding dismissed individual defendants. The court applies the lodestar method to evaluate the fee request, requiring detailed documentation of hours and rates under Ninth Circuit precedent, and considers adjustments based on results obtained and other factors while addressing the prevailing-party status of individual defendants.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves plaintiff Tiffany Fenters's civil claims against her former employers, Yosemite Chevron and related defendants, arising from disputes over accounting practices, alleged false records, and retaliation following complaints about workplace issues including sexual harassment. The defendants moved for summary judgment, objecting to an expert declaration from accountant John Bettancourt regarding the allegedly fabricated accounting work. The court overruled the objections to the expert's qualifications and foundation, finding them relevant to the weight rather than admissibility of the testimony, applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 standards for summary judgment, and granted the motion in part while denying it in part, including dismissal of a Labor Code Section 215 retaliation claim because it was not supported by the alleged facts or legal authority.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case involves a commercial ground lease dispute in which tenant Flagship West alleged that landlord Excel Realty Partners breached an exclusive-use provision by permitting another buffet-style restaurant to open in the same shopping center, leading to the tenant's closure of its business. A jury found Excel liable for breach and awarded damages, after which the district court initially granted rescission of the lease; the Ninth Circuit vacated that ruling on judicial estoppel grounds and remanded for a determination of whether the lease as a whole, including its §4.5 limitations on remedies, permits rescission under California law. On remand, the court interpreted the lease provisions and concluded that the contract in its entirety allows rescission and that California law would give effect to rescission under the circumstances of the case, granting Flagship's motion for that interpretation while denying Excel's related procedural motions.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved challenges by water authorities to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion under the Endangered Species Act that imposed flow and operational restrictions on the Central Valley and State Water Projects to protect the Delta Smelt from entrainment and habitat loss. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, contending that the BiOp's effects analysis, population modeling, use of CALSIM II versus DAYFLOW data, Fall X2 action, and treatment of other stressors failed to meet APA and best-available-science requirements. The court reviewed the administrative record under deferential APA standards, assessing whether the agency's conclusions on adverse effects, habitat surrogates, and reasonable and prudent alternatives were supported and adequately explained. Core reasoning examined specific analytical choices, such as reliance on raw salvage numbers and linear habitat models, and whether the BiOp justified prescriptions without improperly attributing baseline conditions or omitting key data.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves a patent infringement dispute between Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. and Cooper Cameron Corp. over wellhead assemblies covered by U.S. Patent No. 7,025,925. Cameron moved for partial summary judgment on claims of no direct infringement for certain uses or sales, no contributory or induced infringement after a specific date, and no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 standards, rejecting certain objections to evidence, and finding infectious estoppel barred equivalence claims for patent claims 13, 14, and 31 due to amendments during prosecution that surrendered broader equivalents. It also addressed specific elements like lock collars versus lock screws but left other infringement issues for trial.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved the Family Farm Alliance suing the Secretary of the Interior over the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's handling of an Information Quality Act request and appeal concerning a 2008 Biological Opinion on the effects of Central Valley and State Water Project operations on Delta smelt. Plaintiffs' second claim alleged unreasonable delay in responding to their appeal of the agency's denial of corrections to the BiOp, while the third claim challenged the peer review process as violating National Academy of Sciences conflict-of-interest standards incorporated in FWS IQA guidelines. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment, evaluating standing, whether IQA claims are judicially reviewable under the APA as they involve agency discretion by law, mootness due to the agency's eventual response, and the absence of enforceable deadlines or specific peer review mandates in the IQA. The decision referenced precedents holding that such administrative actions are committed to agency discretion and not subject to judicial review.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

In Clark v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., a homeowner who obtained a $360,000 mortgage loan in 2007 and later defaulted sued multiple banks and entities involved in the foreclosure on his California property, raising 17 causes of action that included fraud, breach of various duties, violations of state foreclosure statutes and federal laws such as RESPA and RICO, and a request for injunctive relief. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the entire amended complaint. The court reasoned that the claims rested on legally invalid theories, such as an asserted requirement to produce the original note for foreclosure, insufficient factual allegations to support fraud or other misconduct, and the absence of any standalone cause of action for injunctive relief once the underlying claims were dismissed.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

This case concerns a challenge by the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta to enforcement by the California Department of Fish and Game of state sportfishing regulations protecting striped bass in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, on the ground that the regulations allow striped bass to prey on and take ESA-listed salmon species in violation of ESA Section 9. Plaintiffs moved for summary adjudication that a plaintiff had standing, that the enforcement violated the ESA, and that the CVPIA provided no affirmative defense. The court denied the motion, applying the ESA Section 9 liability standard for 'take' and finding that potential conflicts between the ESA and CVPIA, along with disputed issues, precluded summary judgment in plaintiffs' favor.

environmentfederal power

This case concerns the City of Fresno's claims against Boeing and the United States for cost recovery and contribution related to hazardous waste cleanup at Old Hammer Field, the site of Fresno-Yosemite International Airport, including allegations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) involving 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP) contamination. Boeing moved for summary judgment on the RCRA claim, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction under CERCLA § 113(h), mootness, and absence of imminent and substantial endangerment. The court granted the motion as to TCE and PCE allegations, which the City abandoned, and applied the same jurisdictional analysis used in its prior dismissal of the RCRA claim against the United States. The core reasoning was that the cleanup at OHF proceeds under CERCLA § 104 rather than § 120, as shown by the cooperative agreement, private ownership, lack of NPL listing, and EPA involvement, thereby barring the claim under § 113(h).

environmentprocedurefederal power

This case concerns a dispute between the City of Fresno and the United States (along with Boeing) over responsibility for environmental cleanup costs at Old Hammer Field, a former World War II Army Air base now occupied by Fresno-Yosemite International Airport, involving claims under CERCLA, RCRA, and the California HSAA for remediation of contaminants like TCE, PCE, and TCP. The United States moved for partial judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment on the RCRA claim, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction under CERCLA §113(h), mootness, primary jurisdiction, and absence of imminent endangerment, and for judgment on the pleadings on the HSAA claim due to lack of sovereign immunity waiver. The court determined that the HSAA claim failed because the United States had not unequivocally waived sovereign immunity under 42 U.S.C. §9620(a)(4) for the off-site facilities at issue, as the City's pleadings did not plausibly allege that the remediation site qualified as a federally operated facility or connect U.S. operations to the targeted cleanup, and it amended a prior decision while upholding this analysis without converting the motion to summary judgment.

environmentfederal powerprocedure