Jeffrey Steven White

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.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryproperty

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.

taxes

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.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

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.

civil rightshealthcarefamily lawfederal power

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.

labor & employmenthealthcare

This case involved environmental groups challenging the U.S. Department of Agriculture's issuance of permits allowing seed companies to plant genetically engineered sugar beet stecklings without prior environmental review under NEPA and related statutes. The court granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, ordering the removal of the planted stecklings from the ground. The decision was based on findings that the agency likely violated NEPA by improperly segmenting its review of the permits from subsequent planting cycles and relying on a categorical exclusion instead of conducting a full environmental impact statement. The court determined that plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable environmental harm, with the balance of equities favoring injunctive relief.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves claims by homeowner Marvetia Richardson and her guests against the City of Antioch, its police department, and several officers, arising from a June 2007 incident in which police responded to a noise complaint at Richardson's home, entered without a warrant after an initial response, and took actions leading to alleged Fourth Amendment violations, excessive force, false arrest, and related state-law torts. Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other statutes, asserting the warrantless entry and subsequent conduct were unconstitutional and tortious, with city liability premised on Monell. The court denied the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion, ruling that the officers' re-entry and search lacked consent or exigent circumstances, that plaintiffs' refusal to allow entry without a warrant could not justify the search, and that disputed facts did not create probable cause or immunity on the entry-related claims.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case is a purported class action filed by several individuals against debt collection companies including National Corrective Group, Inc. (formerly American Corrective Counseling Services) and its investors, along with individual defendants, asserting claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, RICO, and related state laws. The suit challenges the defendants' operation of bad-check diversion programs under agreements with California district attorneys, alleging that private entities improperly presented themselves as official government programs to collect debts and fees. The court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss and motions to strike in most respects, permitting the FDCPA and RICO claims to proceed, but granted dismissal with leave to amend solely as to the misrepresentation claims against certain defendants for failure to allege a sufficient factual basis.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a bankruptcy appeal arising from the dissolution and bankruptcy of the Brobeck law firm, where the Plan Trustee sought to recover missed 2002 profit-sharing and matching contributions to the firm's ERISA-governed defined contribution retirement plan on behalf of former partners. The bankruptcy court had sustained an objection to those claims after the former partners settled with the Case Trustee, paying over $24 million to the estate and releasing all claims against it, including any related to the unpaid contributions. The district court affirmed, holding that the former partners had standing under ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B) to assert claims for the unpaid contributions as "benefits due" and that they validly released those claims in the settlement, which offset the Plan Trustee's claims dollar-for-dollar. The reasoning relied on the principle that participants in a defined contribution plan may sue for the value of assets that would have been in their accounts had the employer fulfilled its contribution obligations, treating unpaid contributions as recoverable benefits under the statute.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

This case involves claims by purchasers and retailers against Ganz, Inc., the maker of Webkinz toys, alleging that Ganz illegally tied sales of Webkinz to purchases of its other unrelated products and failed to deliver Webkinz orders in a timely manner. Plaintiffs asserted federal antitrust violations under the Sherman and Clayton Acts, along with related state-law claims under consumer protection statutes in several states. The court granted Ganz's motion to dismiss the antitrust count, the California unfair competition claim, part of the Illinois claim, and the New York claim. The core reasoning was that the complaint failed to define a relevant tied product market, allege facts showing antitrust injury or coercion, or plead the consumer-oriented conduct required under the state statutes, relying instead on conclusory allegations insufficient under Twombly and the applicable state laws; dismissal was without prejudice and with leave to amend.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved California shuttle drivers who alleged that SuperShuttle misclassified them as independent contractors or franchisees rather than employees, thereby denying them minimum wages, overtime, expense reimbursements, and other protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California labor laws. The court granted the motion to dismiss all California-law claims with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1), holding that the Public Utilities Commission possesses exclusive jurisdiction to regulate airport shuttle operations, including driver classification, and that the lawsuit would interfere with the PUC's exercised regulatory authority under Public Utilities Code section 1759. The court denied the Rule 19 motion to dismiss for failure to join necessary parties, concluding that the absent franchisees' interests were aligned with and adequately represented by the existing defendants and that complete relief remained available on the federal claims.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by Jonathan Browning, Inc. against Venetian Casino Resort LLC and related companies, alleging copyright infringement and unfair competition after the defendants allegedly copied the plaintiff's decorative light fixture designs for use in a casino remodel instead of contracting directly. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, denying the plaintiff's motions, because the U.S. Copyright Office had refused registration for the light fixtures as useful articles lacking separable copyrightable features, and only the design drawings were registered. The court reasoned that without a valid copyright in the sconces themselves, the plaintiff could not establish infringement claims, and the unfair competition claims were either preempted by federal copyright law or lacked merit due to the absence of underlying infringement.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Langley v. Carey, a state prisoner petitioned for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after a jury convicted him of voluntary manslaughter with a firearm-use enhancement and felon-in-possession of a firearm, resulting in a 21-year sentence. The district court reviewed claims that the state trial court gave erroneous jury instructions on specific intent and heat of passion, and that the sentencing court improperly relied on aggravating factors. The court denied the petition, holding that the California Court of Appeal's rejection of these claims was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent on due process and the right to a jury trial. The opinion examined the record evidence, including witness testimony about the confrontation at the party and the shooting that followed, and concluded the instructions were adequate and any sentencing error harmless under federal standards.

criminal lawprocedureguns

The case involves an interpleader action under ERISA brought by the trustees of a pension plan to determine the recipient of survivor benefits following the death of a plan participant. The court granted summary judgment to one defendant, Dorothy Etheridge, determining she was entitled to the benefits as the surviving spouse under the plan's terms, and entered default judgments against two other defendants who failed to appear. The reasoning centered on the plan's definition of "surviving spouse," which prioritized legal marriage duration at the time of death or retirement, and found no qualifying prior claims or community property interests that altered the outcome under the plan rules.

labor & employmentfamily lawprocedure

This case involves a former evidence property technician for the City of Martinez Police Department who alleges disability discrimination, harassment, and retaliation after suffering a neck injury that limited her dispatch work. The plaintiff claims her employer increased her dispatch shifts in violation of medical restrictions and eliminated her position in retaliation for her complaints. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding some claims barred or unsupported while allowing others to proceed based on disputed facts regarding the assignments and elimination of the position.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

This case concerns U.S. citizen Jose Padilla, who was designated an enemy combatant after September 11, 2001, detained without charges in a military brig for over three years, and subjected to alleged physical and psychological abuse as part of an interrogation program. Padilla sued John Yoo, a former government attorney, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The court ruled on Yoo's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), denying it in part and granting it in part. The core reasoning highlighted the judicial role in safeguarding individual liberties during wartime, drawing on precedents like Hamdi v. Rumsfeld to assess whether Padilla stated viable claims despite national security concerns.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit filed by American Honda Motor Co. against The Coast Distribution System, Inc., alleging infringement of five U.S. patents related to engine components. The court conducted a Markman hearing to interpret disputed claim terms in the patents-in-suit. Applying established principles of claim construction, the court focused on the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person skilled in the art, informed by the specification and prosecution history, while rejecting constructions that improperly limited terms beyond the intrinsic evidence. For example, the court construed 'guide walls' in the '441 Patent as walls formed on the interior surface of the crank case to guide oil toward the timing gear, and it adopted the parties' agreed construction for a term in the '468 Patent. The order directs the parties to submit a further joint case management report.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Plaintiffs Joseph Ruwe and Elizabeth Orlando filed a purported class action against Verizon Wireless challenging $15 reconnect fees charged after service suspension for late payments under their mobile service agreements, alleging violations of California Civil Code § 1671 on liquidated damages, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and related claims for unjust enrichment and declaratory relief. Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were preempted by Section 332 of the Federal Communications Act and that the reconnect fee did not qualify as a liquidated damages provision. The court denied the motion, holding that Section 332 preempts only rates charged for service and leaves states free to regulate other terms and conditions, and that the fee met the requirements for liquidated damages because it was a fixed and certain sum applied uniformly to customers electing to reconnect suspended service.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case involves a dispute between Robert Jacobsen, a member of an open-source model railroad software project, and Matthew Katzer and his company KAM, which develops competing software. Jacobsen sued for declaratory judgments that KAM's patent was invalid and unenforceable, that he did not infringe it, and for claims including copyright infringement, DMCA violations, and breach of contract. The court granted dismissal of the patent-related claims as moot after KAM disclaimed the patent at issue, granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the remaining claims for failure to state a claim, denied the motion to strike, and denied Jacobsen's request for a preliminary injunction. The core reasoning for denying the injunction was that Jacobsen failed to present evidence of actual or imminent irreparable harm from the alleged copyright issues.

business & regulatoryprocedure