Edward Milton Chen

The case concerned an appeal by attorney Albert Kun from a bankruptcy court order denying his interim fee application and requiring him to disgorge a $5,000 retainer in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Woodcraft Studios, Inc. (later converted to Chapter 7). Kun had been approved to represent the debtor in possession but failed to disclose in his employment application and affidavit that he had performed $3,950 in pre-petition legal work for the company, making him a pre-petition creditor. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling, holding that Kun violated the disclosure requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 327 and Bankruptcy Rule 2014 by not revealing his connections to the debtor or his creditor status. The court found this nondisclosure, combined with a lack of candor, justified denying all fees and ordering disgorgement of the retainer, regardless of retainer type or other issues.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Freeman v. ABC Legal Services, Inc., plaintiff Ruby Freeman sued process server ABC Legal Services and its employee Granville Smith III under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and related California statutes. She alleged that the defendants fabricated a Proof of Service of Summons stating she had been properly served in a debt-collection lawsuit, when in fact no service occurred (“sewer service”), enabling a default judgment against her. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the FDCPA claim, granted Freeman’s request for discovery under Rule 56(d), and denied without prejudice their anti-SLAPP motion to strike the state-law claims. It found that Freeman had alleged facts sufficient to state a plausible FDCPA claim and to show that the process-server exemption did not apply because the defendants allegedly manufactured false proofs of service. The court further held that discovery was warranted because the case was at an early stage, Freeman had identified specific information needed to oppose summary judgment, and there was no showing of delay or lack of diligence on her part.

business & regulatoryprocedure

Barnes & Noble filed a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California seeking rulings of non-infringement and invalidity on eleven patents held by LSI and Agere, after LSI accused the Nook e-reader’s 3G, WiFi, and audio components of infringement and the parties’ licensing negotiations broke down; LSI and Agere later sued BN for infringement of the same patents plus one additional patent in Pennsylvania. Defendants moved to dismiss the original and amended complaints for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, failure to join necessary parties, and application of the first-to-file rule, and alternatively sought transfer to Pennsylvania. The court denied the motions in full. It found an actual controversy existed because of LSI’s pre-suit accusations and ongoing negotiations, the amended complaint properly added Agere as defendant for the patents it owned, and the California action was first-filed with no exceptional circumstances justifying dismissal or transfer under the first-to-file rule or § 1404(a) convenience factors.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Trans Video Electronics suing Sony for infringing claim 3 of Patent No. 5,991,801, which describes an information distribution system using multiple video clip storage units, a master communications unit that receives a synchronous digital signal tied to stored video data, distribution amplifiers that split the signal, and related network components for sending video news clips. Following an earlier claim construction order by Judge Patel, Sony moved for summary judgment on grounds that the patent was invalid for lack of written description. The court granted the motion, holding that the specification’s two embodiments (Figures 1B and 5) fail to disclose the full scope of the construed claim—particularly that the master communications unit receives a synchronous digital signal corresponding to video data from the storage units, rather than a non-video command signal, and that the distribution amplifiers then split that video signal. Trans Video’s expert declaration was rejected because it contradicted the claim construction by recharacterizing the signal and the role of the menu CSU/DSU units.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Lang v. Morris, origami artists sued painter and filmmaker Sarah Morris in California federal court, alleging that 24 paintings in her Origami Series infringed their copyrights in two-dimensional crease patterns for origami designs. Only one plaintiff resided in California, and Morris, a non-resident, moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion, holding that it lacked specific personal jurisdiction because Morris had not purposefully directed her activities at California. Her alleged use of one plaintiff's publicly available images, without knowledge of his California residence, plus her general website, worldwide exhibitions, and limited professional visits to the state, did not create the required minimum contacts under due process standards.

propertyprocedure

This Clean Water Act citizen suit was brought by San Francisco Baykeeper against the West Bay Sanitary District, alleging that dozens of sewage spills (SSOs) from the district's system discharged pollutants into surface waters such as San Francisquito Creek, West Point Slough, and other creeks and sloughs without an NPDES permit. The court ruled on cross-motions including requests for judicial notice, evidentiary objections to declarations, standing, and the plaintiff's partial motion for summary judgment on whether the spills reached waters of the United States. It granted standing to the plaintiff and its members, admitted some evidence while excluding or limiting other portions as unreliable or hearsay, and held that there was no genuine dispute that at least some SSOs directly or indirectly discharged to certain listed waters while finding factual disputes on others. The core reasoning centered on detailed review of spill reports, declarations, rain event data, and maps to trace spill pathways and confirm the waters qualified as protected under the Act.

environmentprocedure

In this patent infringement case, Shared Memory Graphics LLC sued Apple, Nintendo, and Sony for allegedly infringing two patents on shared memory graphics accelerator systems with on-chip and off-chip frame buffers. The defendants moved to compel supplemental infringement contentions under Patent Local Rule 3-1, arguing that the plaintiff's initial disclosures and claim charts were insufficiently detailed. The court granted the motions, ordering the plaintiff to file amended contentions by January 31, 2011 that specifically map each claim limitation to the accused products and include all known facts, while staying discovery until February 1, 2011. The core reasoning was that the local rules require early crystallization of infringement theories with adequate specificity to provide notice, replace contention interrogatories, and structure the case efficiently toward claim construction.

procedure

The case concerns allegations by a former sales representative against Vector Marketing Corp. for violations of the FLSA and California Labor Code, including failure to pay minimum wages for unpaid training time, failure to reimburse expenses for required sample knife sets and other costs, and related unfair competition claims. Plaintiff sought certification of her FLSA claim as a collective action and her state law claims as a Rule 23 class action, while the defendant cross-moved to decertify or deny certification. The court granted the FLSA collective action certification and denied decertification, finding that the plaintiff had sufficiently shown that potential class members were similarly situated based on evidence of common training and employment practices. It granted in part and denied in part the Rule 23 class certification motions after evaluating commonality, predominance, and typicality requirements using declarations, depositions, and survey data from thousands of sales representatives. The decision focused on evidentiary showings regarding whether trainees and representatives qualified as employees entitled to wages and reimbursements under federal and state law.

labor & employmentprocedure

Plaintiff Tammi Jones sued AIG, Inc., AIG Risk Management, and National Union Fire Insurance Company after suffering injuries in a 2004 car accident while driving a company vehicle, alleging that the defendants unreasonably delayed processing her underinsured motorist claim under her employer's policy, leading to financial hardship and emotional distress. The suit asserted claims including breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, interference with contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and conspiracy. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissing contract claims against AIG, Inc. and AIG Risk Management with leave to amend but allowing them to proceed against National Union, dismissing fraud and interference claims in most respects (with one interference claim dismissed with prejudice), and denying dismissal of the IIED and conspiracy claims; it also denied the motions to strike. The rulings turned on whether each defendant was a party to the insurance contract, the adequacy of allegations supporting the various causes of action, and the availability of punitive damages.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a minor plaintiff, D.S., who sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act after being injured by a bicyclist on Battery East Road in the Presidio national park; she alleged negligence based on the government's failure to stripe the road for separate pedestrian and bicycle lanes or to adequately warn users of the shared road. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the discretionary function exception to the FTCA or, alternatively, for summary judgment based on immunity under California's Recreational Use statute. The court granted the motion, finding that decisions about road striping and warnings involved protected discretionary policy judgments immune from suit, and that even if jurisdiction existed, the plaintiff failed to show any willful or malicious conduct by the government that would overcome the recreational use immunity. The ruling rested on the absence of mandatory regulations prescribing specific actions and a lack of evidence creating a factual dispute on willfulness.

torts & liabilityfederal powerprocedure

The case concerns plaintiff Alicia Harris's claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act that Vector Marketing Corporation failed to pay minimum wages to its California Sales Representatives for time spent in initial training, on the theory that these workers were employees rather than independent contractors. Harris moved for conditional certification of a collective action on behalf of all individuals who worked as Sales Representatives in California from April 15, 2006, onward. The court granted the motion, applying the lenient first-stage standard for FLSA collective actions, which requires only substantial allegations that putative class members were subject to a single common policy or plan violating the statute. The court found that Harris had met this modest factual showing through pleadings and declarations, without needing extensive evidence at this preliminary stage.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case is a class action by Alicia Harris against Vector Marketing Corp. alleging violations of California Labor Code sections and the FLSA for unpaid wages, minimum wage failures, recordkeeping issues, and related claims arising from her work selling Cutco knives as a sales representative. The parties disputed whether Harris was hired as an employee or independent contractor and whether her hiring occurred before or after a three-day training period, with all claims hinging on employee status. On Vector's motion for summary judgment regarding Harris's individual claims, the court granted summary adjudication on the damages portion of the §226 pay record claim and the §201 timely wage payment claim but denied it on the remaining claims, including minimum wage violations under state and federal law. The core reasoning was that genuine issues of material fact existed on employment classification and other predicate violations, precluding summary judgment except where specific statutory elements were clearly unmet.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Consumer Solutions REO, LLC sued defendant Ruthie B. Hillery and her law firm seeking judicial foreclosure and an equitable lien on Hillery's real property in California, following a 2006 refinancing loan from New Century Mortgage that Hillery attempted to rescind. Hillery filed a counter-complaint asserting nine claims against Consumer Solutions and others, including violations of TILA, HOEPA, RESPA, FDCPA, predatory lending statutes, elder financial abuse, fraud, quiet title, and requests for accounting and declaratory relief, based on allegations of improper loan terms, failure to honor rescission, and improper foreclosure proceedings. The court granted in part and denied in part Consumer Solutions' motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding some claims legally insufficient while allowing others to proceed, and deemed the related motion to strike moot. The decision applied the plausibility standard from Iqbal and Twombly, evaluating the factual allegations for each claim individually, including issues like statute of limitations, verification requirements, and whether certain letters constituted acknowledgments of rescission rights.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involves plaintiff Michelle Fanucci's claims against Allstate Insurance Company for breach of contract, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation arising from an underinsured motorist accident in 1997, where her parents had auto and umbrella policies; she alleged that an Allstate agent represented the umbrella policy would provide excess UIM coverage beyond the auto policy limits, though the written policy terms limited it to third-party liability. The court granted in part and denied in part Allstate's motion for summary judgment. Core reasoning focused on whether the Fanuccis justifiably relied on the agent's statements from 1987 despite the policy language, the timing of the umbrella policy purchase, and the absence of evidence supporting mutual mistake or other contract theories, allowing certain claims like negligent misrepresentation to proceed while dismissing others.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Jessica Jackson, an exotic dancer, filed a class action lawsuit against defendant S.A.W. Entertainment Ltd., the owner of a San Francisco club, alleging violations of the California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code, and San Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance based on the misclassification of dancers as independent contractors rather than employees. S.A.W. moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an agreement Jackson signed when she began performing at the club. The court denied the motion, holding the arbitration agreement unenforceable on grounds of unconscionability. The decision rested on findings of both procedural unconscionability, due to the adhesive nature of the contract and lack of meaningful choice, and substantive unconscionability, including provisions waiving class actions, shortening the statute of limitations to six months, and restricting the arbitrator's authority over class claims, which were viewed as one-sided in the employment context.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns whether California Labor Code section 2802 requires an employee to request reimbursement before an employer's duty to indemnify for work-related expenses is triggered. The court rejected the view that reimbursement is due only after an employee makes a formal request, even when the employer knew or should have known of the expense, as well as the view that the duty arises automatically upon incurrence regardless of employer knowledge. Instead, it held that once an employer knows or has reason to know an expense was incurred, it must exercise due diligence to ensure reimbursement, though simply maintaining policies does not satisfy this obligation. Because the record did not establish RadioShack's actual or constructive knowledge from the ICST data alone, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary adjudication without prejudice and treated its interpretation as a ruling in limine.

labor & employment

In Smith v. City of Oakland, plaintiffs Torry Smith and Patricia Gray sued Oakland police officers, alleging that the officers unlawfully entered their home, planted a semi-automatic rifle, and used it to arrest and prosecute Smith on gun charges, resulting in his incarceration for about 18 months before charges were dismissed. After a trial, the jury found for the plaintiffs on all federal constitutional and state civil rights claims and awarded more than $6 million in damages. The court denied the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial on liability, concluding that the evidence supported the jury's findings of violations. On damages, the court granted the motion in part by ordering remittitur on certain awards and denied it in part, upholding the remainder of the verdict.

civil rightscriminal law

The case concerns defendant Latosha Gardner, who was indicted on charges of conspiracy and sex trafficking of a minor and initially released pretrial on bond with various conditions but without electronic monitoring. The government later moved to amend the release conditions to add electronic monitoring, as required by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006's amendments to the Bail Reform Act for certain offenses. Gardner objected, arguing that the mandatory condition violated the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Bail Clause, procedural due process, and separation of powers. After reviewing the parties' arguments and relevant precedent, the court granted the government's motion and ordered the addition of electronic monitoring, concluding that the statutory requirement did not run afoul of the Constitution in this context.

criminal lawprocedure

In Khanna v. State Bar of California, plaintiff Padam Kumar Khanna, a former attorney disbarred in 2006 by the California Supreme Court following State Bar Court proceedings, sued the State Bar and its employees alleging violations of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to a fair trial, due process, equal protection, and counsel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on claims of evidence tampering, perjury, and procedural irregularities during his disbarment hearing. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice. The decision rested on Eleventh Amendment immunity for the State Bar, absolute judicial and quasi-judicial immunity for the individual defendants involved in the disciplinary process, and collateral estoppel barring relitigation of issues already decided in the prior state proceedings.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved a copyright infringement lawsuit by Brayton Purcell LLP against Recordon & Recordon over the alleged copying of a website concerning elder abuse law. After the parties agreed to binding arbitration, an arbitrator found both Recordon and additional defendants liable for infringement and awarded damages and fees; the court then confirmed the award over challenges from the defendants. Brayton Purcell subsequently moved for post-arbitration attorney's fees and costs under the Copyright Act's fee-shifting provision, 17 U.S.C. § 505. The court granted the motion in part, holding that § 505 applies to confirmation proceedings and awarding fees after weighing relevant factors such as the degree of success, objective reasonableness, and compensation, while allocating responsibility between the two sets of defendants and denying recovery for certain non-compensable costs. The court also ordered a bill of costs under Rule 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920 for the remaining amounts.

procedurebusiness & regulatory