The case involves consolidated class actions by students Kevin Ferguson and Sandra Muniz against Corinthian Colleges and related entities, alleging breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of California consumer protection statutes based on claims that the schools misrepresented educational quality, leading to high tuition, loans, and poor job outcomes. Defendants moved to compel individual arbitration under enrollment agreements containing arbitration clauses. The court granted the motions in part, finding the agreements valid and enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, with broad scope covering the plaintiffs' individual claims for damages and restitution, which were stayed pending arbitration; it denied the motions in part as to claims for public injunctive relief, which may proceed in court because they seek to protect the public rather than individual interests.
The case involved two former employees of Rockwell Collins, Inc. who sued for violations of the California Labor Code, Business & Professions Code § 17200, and the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), seeking to represent a class. The defendant moved to compel arbitration under employment agreements containing arbitration clauses, but did so only after removing the case from state court, transferring venue, participating in a scheduling conference, and conducting discovery—nearly thirteen months after filing. The court denied the motion in full as to one plaintiff because the defendant had waived its right to arbitrate by acting inconsistently with that right and prejudicing the plaintiff. It denied arbitration of the second plaintiff's PAGA claims on the ground that California law prohibits waivers of the right to bring representative PAGA actions and such rules are not preempted by the FAA. For the second plaintiff's remaining claims, the court ordered further discovery on whether the arbitration agreement is enforceable under the Gentry test.
In Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., the dispute centered on MGA's counterclaim alleging that Mattel had willfully and maliciously misappropriated 26 categories of MGA's trade secret information in violation of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The jury found in MGA's favor on the misappropriation claim and awarded compensatory damages, after which the court addressed MGA's application for exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The court granted in part and denied in part the application, awarding MGA $85 million in exemplary damages, $2,172,000 in attorneys' fees, and $350,000 in costs. The core reasoning applied CUTSA's provision allowing exemplary damages up to twice the compensatory award when misappropriation is willful and malicious, while evaluating the reprehensibility of the conduct, the amount of harm, comparable penalties, and constitutional limits on excessive awards, along with common-law factors such as the defendant's financial condition.
This case involves thirty-nine current and former truck drivers employed by McLane Foodservices, Inc., who sued under California's Private Attorneys General Act and Unfair Competition Law, claiming the company's piece-rate pay formula failed to compensate them for pre- and post-shift duties, rest breaks, meal periods, and waiting time, and that wage statements were inaccurate. The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment while denying the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment. On the piece-rate claims, the court held that the formula was unlawful because it did not separately pay for all required duties and could not rely on an averaging method to meet minimum wage obligations. The court denied summary judgment on the preemption issue, finding that the meal and rest break claims were not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act because the state rules were not sufficiently related to motor vehicle safety. Other portions of the defendant's motion regarding UCL restitution and PAGA notice requirements were also denied.
labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power
The case involved plaintiff Rick Aversano suing law firm Greenberg Traurig for civil RICO violations under 18 U.S.C. § 1962, along with state claims, stemming from the firm's advice on tax shelter transactions called POPS and HOMER that allegedly involved mail and wire fraud, undisclosed promoter fees, and resulted in over $3 million in losses after IRS audits and bans. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the RICO claim. It reasoned that the complaint's allegations showed the transactions were investments in securities with a common enterprise and profit expectation, triggering the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act bar on civil RICO claims based on securities fraud. The RICO claim was dismissed with prejudice, and the case was remanded to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction.