Cormac J. Carney

This case arose from the bankruptcy of Four Star Financial Services, LLC, which had acquired rights to promissory notes from consumers who purchased multi-generational campground memberships from Thousand Adventures, Inc. A consumer class representative filed a claim in Four Star's bankruptcy seeking priority status under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7) for a default judgment based on undelivered membership services. The bankruptcy court granted priority treatment, but the district court reversed on appeal, holding that the initiation fees did not qualify as deposits for undelivered services. The court reasoned that payment of the fee immediately conferred membership and access to the campground network, with future use dependent on annual dues rather than constituting prepayment for goods or services to be provided later.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this copyright infringement case, Olander Enterprises sued Spencer Gifts and other defendants, alleging that they copied approximately twenty belt buckle designs protected by four of Olander's copyright registrations, each of which purported to cover collections of designs published in catalogs. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the registrations were invalid because they did not qualify as "single work" registrations under Copyright Office regulations. The court granted the motions, holding that Olander's registrations were invalid because sales records showed many individual belt buckle designs had been sold or published separately well before the claimed publication dates of the collections, violating the requirement that all works in a single-work registration be first published together as a unit. Olander's cross-motion on standing was denied as moot because the invalidity of the registrations disposed of the infringement claims.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In this bankruptcy case, Crystal Cathedral Ministries filed for Chapter 11 protection and sought to maintain utility service by proposing a segregated account holding $80,460 as adequate assurance of payment to Southern California Edison under 11 U.S.C. § 366. The bankruptcy court approved the account as sufficient assurance, rejecting the utility's demand for a direct cash deposit of the same amount held by the provider. On appeal, the district court affirmed, ruling that the segregated account qualified as a cash deposit under the statute, that the court had authority to select the form and amount of assurance when parties disagreed, and that the provided security was adequate to prevent service interruption.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This antitrust case under Section 2 of the Sherman Act concerns Arminak's claims that Calmar monopolized or attempted to monopolize the market for trigger sprayers by entering into exclusive dealing contracts with purchasers that included full-line requirements and right-of-first-refusal clauses. Arminak sought to introduce evidence at trial of five other categories of Calmar's conduct—low pricing, creation of a new product division, patent litigation, intellectual property acquisitions, and certain business dealings—which Arminak conceded were lawful and pro-competitive on their own, to show Calmar's anticompetitive intent regarding the contracts. The court granted Calmar's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that such evidence is inadmissible for that purpose. The core reasoning is that antitrust law protects competition rather than competitors, and evidence of lawful conduct cannot be repurposed to prove willful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power through the challenged contracts.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by several Muslim organizations and individuals seeking records of any FBI investigations or surveillance related to them. The court conducted an in camera review after initial summary judgment motions and discovered that the government had made false and misleading representations about the existence and scope of responsive documents, claiming fewer documents existed and that much information was outside the request's scope when in fact many documents were responsive. The court reasoned that the government cannot mislead the judiciary under any circumstances, including claims of national security, because the courts must be able to rely on truthful information to fulfill their constitutional role in overseeing compliance with the law.

civil rightsfederal power

This case was a putative class action brought by drivers who received traffic citations from automated cameras in Santa Ana, alleging that the City and its contractor Redflex violated California Vehicle Code Section 21455.5(b) by failing to issue 30-day warning notices before citations for each new camera installation. Plaintiffs asserted claims of unjust enrichment and violations of California's unfair competition law against Redflex, based on the company's role in operating the system and mailing citations. The court granted Redflex's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that the statute applies only to local jurisdictions and not to private contractors like Redflex. The court also granted Redflex's anti-SLAPP motion to strike the claims, finding the company's provision of violation data was protected activity and that plaintiffs had not shown a probability of prevailing.

procedurecriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

Plaintiff Mamikon Karapetian sued Kia Motors America, Inc. under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, alleging defects in a 2004 Kia Sedona that supported claims for breach of warranties and failure to promptly repurchase or repair the vehicle. After the parties settled the underlying claims for roughly $30,000 in restitution and damages, Karapetian moved for an award of $127,461.73 in attorneys' fees and costs as the prevailing party. The court granted the motion only in part, awarding $20,857.73 limited to fees and costs incurred before Kia's November 2008 Rule 68 offer. The court reasoned that the final settlement provided essentially the same relief as the earlier offer—full restitution including loan payoff, incidental damages, and statutory costs—so post-offer fees produced no meaningful additional benefit and were not reasonably incurred.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition by Thomas S. Owen challenging the California Board of Parole Hearings' 2007 decision finding him unsuitable for parole after serving over 20 years for a 1985 second-degree murder conviction. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and granted the writ, ordering a new parole suitability hearing within 30 days. The court reasoned that the Board's denial relied on static factors from the commitment offense and other outdated information that did not constitute "some evidence" of the petitioner's current dangerousness to society. It directed that parole be granted absent new, relevant evidence of post-2007 conduct or mental state changes indicating current risk, and specified terms for calculating release if suitable.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a dispute between two companies producing bottled artesian water from Fiji, where plaintiffs FIJI alleged that defendants VITI infringed on their trademark and trade dress through similar packaging and labeling. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against the defendants. FIJI demonstrated that it had developed a distinctive trade dress associated with its product through substantial investment and marketing, and that VITI's similar design was likely to cause consumer confusion. The court found that FIJI met the requirements for a preliminary injunction, including likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.

business & regulatory

Plaintiffs, a class of Chase credit card holders, brought claims against Chase Bank under the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act as well as, for California residents, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, alleging Chase participated in fraudulent credit repair and debt management practices. Chase moved for partial summary judgment on the California claims, arguing that a choice-of-law provision in the credit card agreements required disputes to be resolved under Delaware law. The court granted the motion, holding that the provision's broad language encompassed the statutory claims because they concerned repayment of debt, an essential contract term. The court further found the provision enforceable under California choice-of-law rules because Delaware had a substantial relationship to the parties and transaction (Chase is incorporated there and performance occurred there) and California did not demonstrate a materially greater interest that would override the parties' selection of Delaware law.

business & regulatory

This case involves plaintiff John Robert Openshaw's claims against defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. for wrongful termination of his agreement to serve as a delivery driver after he invested substantial resources in the business. FedEx moved to compel arbitration based on provisions in the contractor operating agreement. The court denied the motion, finding the arbitration provisions unconscionable due to terms that drastically shortened the time to file claims to 90 days, limited discovery and damages recovery, imposed significant costs on Openshaw, and prohibited a written opinion from the arbitrator. The court concluded these terms were unreasonably favorable to FedEx and denied Openshaw a fair opportunity to resolve his claim.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Reed v. County of Orange, deputy sheriffs for the Orange County Sheriff's Department sued the County under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover pay for time spent donning and doffing their uniforms before and after shifts. Following the Ninth Circuit's decision in Bamonte v. City of Mesa, the court reconsidered and granted the County's motion for summary judgment. The court held that the donning and doffing activities were not compensable because they were not integral and indispensable to the deputies' principal law enforcement duties, as many deputies performed these tasks at home without issue and no health or safety requirement mandated changing at work.

labor & employment

The case involved the U.S. Secretary of Labor suing Best Miracle Corporation, its owner Thuy Thi Le, and supervisor Toan Van Nguyen for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act at their Santa Ana garment shop. The court, after a seven-day bench trial, found that the defendants had systematically falsified employee timecards to conceal overtime hours, paid workers in cash at straight time for hours over 40 per week, and failed to maintain accurate records despite prior FLSA violations at a related business. It concluded that employees routinely worked over 60 hours weekly without proper overtime compensation. The court ordered the defendants to pay $172,832.50 in back wages and permanently enjoined them from further FLSA violations.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Gezalyan v. BMW of North America, the plaintiff sued under California's Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act seeking an unconditional repurchase or replacement of her vehicle due to defects. After BMW repurchased the vehicle unconditionally for over $58,000 following the filing of the lawsuit, the plaintiff moved for attorneys' fees. The court granted the motion, awarding $50,404.34, reasoning that the plaintiff was the prevailing party as she achieved her primary litigation objective, and addressing various arguments from BMW regarding pre-suit offers, partial success, settlement offers, and fee rates.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a defendant charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute under federal law. At trial, the jury deadlocked on the greater offense but unanimously agreed on guilt for the lesser-included offense of simple possession, though the court did not enter a verdict on the lesser charge due to government objection. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment with prejudice, arguing that retrial on the greater offense would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause and Ninth Circuit precedent such as United States v. Jackson. The court granted the motion, holding that the circumstances of the jury's deadlock on the greater offense and agreement on the lesser barred retrial on the distribution charge.

criminal law

The case involved the sentencing of Veronica Garcia-Lopez, a legal permanent resident brought to the U.S. as an infant, who pleaded guilty to illegal re-entry after deportation stemming from a 1998 drug trafficking conviction. The court imposed a sentence of six months imprisonment deemed time served, instead of the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range of 41 to 51 months. The core reasoning was that the defendant's unique mitigating factors—including childhood abuse, a serious ongoing medical condition requiring multiple brain surgeries, cultural assimilation in the U.S., rehabilitation with no further arrests since 1998, and her primary motivation to remain with her young son—were not captured by the Guidelines and rendered a longer custodial sentence unwarranted under the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

immigrationcriminal law

This case is a securities litigation brought by plaintiffs against the Cooper Companies, a contact lens manufacturer, and its officers, alleging false statements before and after Cooper's 2005 acquisition of Ocular Sciences to conceal inventory, sales integration, and competitive issues that could affect stock price. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, including those based on alleged misrepresentations about inventory strategy, sales force integration, silicone hydrogel competition, and control-person liability under §20(a). The court denied the motion in substantial part, concluding that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to create genuine disputes of material fact on most issues, while granting summary judgment only as to one individual's control-person liability due to lack of proof of actual power or control. The core reasoning examined deposition testimony, declarations, field reports, and SEC filings to assess whether statements were misleading and whether individuals exercised requisite control.

business & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Tina Baughman, who has a degenerative muscular disease that impairs her mobility, sued Walt Disney World Co. under the Americans with Disabilities Act after Disney refused to modify its policy prohibiting Segway use at Disneyland due to safety concerns, even though the park allows wheelchairs and scooters. The court granted Disney's motion for summary judgment on the ADA claim and denied Baughman's cross-motion, while remanding the remaining state-law claims to California court. The core reasoning was that Baughman failed to show the requested modification was necessary under the ADA, as she could access the park via permitted alternatives like wheelchairs or scooters, and prior litigation findings judicially estopped her from arguing otherwise. The court declined to address the state claims, finding they raised novel questions of California law better suited for state courts.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Eunice Fashion challenging USCIS's revocation of an I-140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker filed on behalf of Sung Ill Kim, which had been transferred after the original petitioner went out of business. USCIS revoked the petition after the company failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Revoke prompted by its former counsel's guilty plea to immigration fraud, and the plaintiff sought to reopen the matter on grounds that the revocation was improper and that ineffective assistance of new counsel caused the non-response. The court granted USCIS's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). It reasoned that the plaintiff had not alleged facts showing an abuse of discretion by USCIS in revoking the petition for good cause under the INA and related regulations, and that there is no due process right to effective assistance of counsel in I-140 petition revocation proceedings, which are distinct from deportation hearings.

immigrationprocedure

The case involved a dispute over the custody of two minors who were removed from their mother's care in Germany by authorities and brought to California by their father, leading to state divorce, custody, and juvenile dependency proceedings. The mother filed a federal petition under the Hague Convention and ICARA seeking the children's return to Germany, mirroring relief she had sought without success in state court. The district court dismissed the action under the Younger abstention doctrine, reasoning that federal intervention would interfere with ongoing state proceedings that implicate important state interests in protecting children through dependency matters, where the mother had already litigated related claims.

family lawfederal powerprocedure