In Walsh v. Kindred Healthcare, plaintiffs who resided in California skilled nursing facilities alleged that defendants and Rossmoor, LLC failed to meet the 3.2 nursing hours per patient day staffing requirement under Health and Safety Code section 1276.5(a) and to provide adequate qualified personnel under section 1599.1, leading to harms such as delayed care and use of restraints; they also claimed misrepresentations about staffing and brought claims under section 1430(b), the Unfair Competition Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The court granted the main defendants' motion to dismiss in full and Rossmoor, LLC's motion in part. The core reasoning was that plaintiffs failed to adequately plead alter ego liability or agency theories with non-conclusory facts, that certain claims were subject to primary jurisdiction before the California Department of Public Health, and that direct enforcement of the staffing statute was not available through the asserted causes of action.
The case involved homeowners who participated in trial period plans under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) administered by Wells Fargo and sued the bank after failing to receive permanent loan modifications, asserting claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. The court granted Wells Fargo's motions to dismiss both related complaints without leave to amend. The core reasoning was that the trial period plans and HAMP guidelines did not create an enforceable promise of a permanent modification, as any final decision remained subject to the bank's discretion and additional requirements, and that HAMP provides no private right of action that could support the state-law claims.
The case concerned whether William Hawkins' tax liabilities for 1997 through 2000, arising from invalid tax shelter transactions, could be discharged in his Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment excepting the taxes from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C). The court found that Hawkins knew of his substantial tax debts and insolvency after audits and assessments by the IRS and FTB, yet continued making unreasonable and unnecessary personal expenditures exceeding his income. This conduct satisfied both the mental state and affirmative conduct requirements for willful evasion of tax collection, preventing discharge.
This case concerns an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court in which the trustee for Tamalpais Bancorp sought a declaratory judgment that certain tax refunds secured by the FDIC as receiver for the subsidiary Tamalpais Bank belonged to the debtor's estate under a 2005 Tax Sharing Agreement. The FDIC moved to withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy court under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), arguing that its defenses required interpretation of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) and other non-bankruptcy federal law. The district court granted the motion, holding that mandatory withdrawal was required because resolution of the proceeding necessitates consideration of federal statutes regulating organizations affecting interstate commerce, and that permissive withdrawal was also appropriate because the claim is non-core, turns primarily on contract and FIRREA issues rather than Title 11, and would be subject to de novo review without party consent, promoting judicial efficiency.
This case involved Karen Golinski, a Ninth Circuit staff attorney, who sought to enroll her same-sex spouse in her federal employee health insurance plan after their legal marriage in California. The Ninth Circuit Judicial Council had ordered the Administrative Office to process her enrollment under its Employment Dispute Resolution Plan, which prohibits discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation, but the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) directed the insurer not to comply, citing Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining spouse as opposite-sex only and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (FEHBA). Golinski filed suit seeking a writ of mandamus to compel OPM to rescind its guidance and allow coverage. The district court granted OPM's motion to dismiss the complaint and denied the motion for preliminary injunction, holding that Golinski could not establish OPM had a clear, nondiscretionary duty to act as required for mandamus relief because OPM holds authority to interpret and administer the health benefits contracts under federal law. The court granted leave to amend the complaint.
This case arose from Plaintiff Pamela Jackson's ERISA claim challenging the termination of her long-term disability benefits under a plan administered by Prudential for her former employer. The court had previously granted summary judgment to the defendants. In the present order, the court adopted a magistrate judge's report and recommendation and denied the defendants' motion for attorneys' fees under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g). The core reasoning applied the Hummell factors and found that the claim was not frivolous or in bad faith, the plaintiff had limited ability to pay any fee award, and other considerations did not support shifting fees to the plaintiff.
