Audrey B. Collins

This case involved Paramount Contractors, a company seeking to erect and maintain supergraphic signs at two locations in Los Angeles, which sued the City after its permit applications were not accepted or processed under the City's sign regulations, including the Hollywood Signage Supplemental Use District. Paramount raised claims under the First Amendment, equal protection, and takings clauses, along with related allegations of discriminatory treatment and improper permit conditions, following an earlier similar lawsuit that had been dismissed. The court granted the City's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in full and with prejudice, finding that many claims were moot due to a 2010 amendment banning such signs, that Paramount could not pursue damages after disavowing them in prior proceedings, and that the remaining as-applied, equal protection, and takings claims failed as a matter of law because no pattern of favoritism was shown and the City was not liable for actions by the Community Redevelopment Agency.

free speechbusiness & regulatorypropertycivil rights

The case involved Reuland Electric Company's motion to enforce a 2008 CERCLA consent decree it entered with the EPA and enjoin Northrop Grumman's pending state court contribution action. The underlying dispute concerned VOC groundwater contamination in the San Gabriel Basin's Puente Valley Operable Unit, where Reuland had settled its federal liability but Northrop Grumman, after settling separately with a private water company for well-treatment costs, sought equitable indemnity from non-settling parties including Reuland. The court denied the motion, ruling that the decree's contribution protection extended only to EPA "response costs" and "Matters Addressed" under CERCLA and did not encompass the water company's separate pre- and post-remedy damages. It further held that the Anti-Injunction Act barred enjoining the state action, as no statutory exception applied and the state claims were not preempted by the federal decree.

environmentproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a trademark dispute over the mark "Would You Rather ... ?" used for board games and books. Zobmondo Entertainment filed a counterclaim seeking to cancel Spin Master's federal trademark registration on the grounds of fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office, alleging lack of bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce at the time of the intent-to-use application. The court granted Spin Master's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the counterclaim. The reasoning was that the undisputed facts demonstrated efforts by Spin Master's predecessors to develop and commercialize the game, such as preparing materials and seeking contacts, which established a bona fide intent, and there was no evidence of a subjective intent to deceive the PTO.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a class action brought by mobility- and dexterity-impaired pretrial detainees against Orange County, California, alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act in the county jail system. Following a bench trial after remand from the Ninth Circuit, the court found that the County violated the ADA by maintaining inaccessible facilities, categorically excluding disabled detainees from programs and services available to others when viewed in their entirety, and failing to provide adequate ADA notice and grievance procedures. The court concluded that reasonable accommodations exist to remedy these violations. It therefore ordered the County to submit a remedial plan within 45 days addressing the identified deficiencies, while limiting the class to pretrial detainees with mobility or dexterity impairments.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs Wayne Charles and Fort Self Storage, Inc. challenging the City of Los Angeles's classification of their proposed temporary off-site signs (including one promoting E! News) as commercial under the City's Sign Ordinance, which generally prohibits or restricts such signs while allowing noncommercial messages. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and damages, claiming the signs were noncommercial and thus permitted. The court granted the City's motion to dismiss, concluding that the signs were properly classified as commercial speech because they promoted a business, product, or service not located on the premises, applying the Bolger factors and related precedents to distinguish commercial from noncommercial content. The court found no viable First Amendment or state constitutional claim on this basis and denied the motion for a more definite statement as moot.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

This case is a class action brought by plaintiff Martin Ehrlich against BMW of North America alleging that certain MINI vehicles from 2001-2010 had a design defect causing windshields to crack or chip under normal conditions, which BMW knew about through internal testing and complaints but concealed while marketing the cars' safety features. Plaintiff claimed he and others paid for multiple replacements outside warranty and faced safety risks, asserting violations of the CLRA, UCL, breach of express and implied warranties, and related claims. The court granted in part and denied in part BMW's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), allowing amendment within specified limits, primarily because some claims lacked sufficient allegations of a duty to disclose or privity while others sufficiently stated causes of action based on the alleged concealment and warranty terms. The reasoning focused on the adequacy of pleadings regarding knowledge, active concealment, safety implications, and statutory requirements for consumer protection and warranty claims under California law.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

This case arose from a civil forfeiture action in which the government seized properties from the Kim Claimants based on alleged fraud and embezzlement but ultimately lost on its claims, resulting in court-ordered awards of attorney's fees to their counsel under CAFRA that were deposited with the court clerk. The dispute centers on whether those fee awards and the claimants' interests in the seized properties are subject to the government's tax liens for roughly $25 million in liabilities, or whether the attorney's claimed $2.7 million in fees has priority and should be paid free of encumbrance. After the government reversed its earlier position that the priority issue belonged in a separate wrongful levy action, the court reconsidered its denial of the attorney's motion to intervene in the forfeiture proceeding. The court held that the fee awards are payable directly to the attorney and that the priority dispute is not ripe for adjudication at this stage.

taxespropertyprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Bradford Coleman, a former pickup and delivery driver, filed a class action lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court against Estes Express Lines, Inc. and Estes West, alleging multiple violations of California wage and hour laws, including failures to pay overtime, provide meal and rest breaks, and issue compliant wage statements, on behalf of two subclasses of non-exempt employees. The defendants removed the action to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The district court granted the plaintiff's motion to remand the matter back to state court, finding that the case satisfied the local controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction because significant relief was sought from the local defendant Estes West, whose conduct formed a significant basis for the claims, and more than two-thirds of the proposed class members were California citizens. The court's reasoning focused on the statutory requirements for the exception, including the need to assess the significance of relief and conduct without regard to the defendants' ability to pay or the proportion of claims against each defendant.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns plaintiff Harold Hall's § 1983 claims against the City of Los Angeles and detectives, arising from a 1985 interrogation in which Hall confessed to two murders after prolonged questioning that included threats about his safety in jail and prison due to his prior informant role. The defendants moved for summary judgment on Hall's allegations of coercive tactics and deliberate fabrication of evidence. The court granted the motion, holding that the interrogation methods, while potentially coercive, did not violate due process under the Devereaux standard because Hall failed to produce evidence that officers knew or should have known the resulting confession was false. The court also rejected the Monell claim against the city, finding insufficient proof of ratification by policymakers. The decision focused on the absence of triable issues regarding knowing fabrication of evidence from the plaintiff's own statements.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved union-related trusts suing JAM Fire Protection under ERISA for allegedly failing to make required benefit contributions on LAUSD construction projects governed by a Project Stabilization Agreement and Local 11 Inside Wiremen's Agreement. The trusts claimed JAM improperly classified 17 workers as apprentices (who require lower contributions) rather than journeymen, owing an additional $272,738 plus costs. The court granted the unions' motion for summary judgment and denied JAM's cross-motion, finding that the workers were not enrolled in or dispatched from the required joint apprenticeship program under the agreements and thus had to be treated as journeymen for contribution purposes. JAM's defenses regarding alternative programs, lack of grievances, or dispatch issues were rejected as irrelevant or inapplicable to the trusts' claims. The court awarded the calculated shortfall with interest under ERISA provisions.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved two African-American American Airlines employees, McKinney and Steward, who were terminated under the company's Rule 34 for dishonesty after an investigation into their work hours revealed discrepancies via turnstile records, following complaints and their returns from medical leave. The employees brought multiple claims including discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and a hostile work environment, alleging they were singled out due to race and their medical leaves. The court granted the defendant's motions for summary adjudication in part, dismissing the first through fourth causes of action, certain Labor Code claims, and punitive damages for Steward, while denying the motions in part on the fifth and sixth causes of action for McKinney and remaining issues for Steward. The core reasoning focused on undisputed facts showing the investigations were initiated by a coworker complaint rather than protected activity, that Plaintiffs had signed acknowledgments of the dishonesty policy, and that no genuine issues existed on some claims but triable issues remained on others like potential pretext in the terminations.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In Mosley v. Walker, petitioner Carlton Mosley challenged his state court convictions for multiple counts of making criminal threats against jail deputies under California Penal Code § 422, as well as a weapons possession count, through a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the petition and dismissing the action with prejudice. The court reasoned that the California Court of Appeal's affirmance of the convictions was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as the evidence showed the threats were unequivocal, unconditional, and caused the deputies reasonable fear given Mosley's gang affiliation, access to contraband, and references to prior violence against officers. The state court's factual findings regarding the threats' specificity and the victims' fear were presumed correct and supported the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Damone Heron, who was convicted in California state court of continuous sexual abuse of a child and lewd acts upon a child, with a great bodily injury enhancement, resulting in a 29-year prison sentence. Petitioner challenged his sentence on grounds that upper terms and consecutive sentences violated his rights to a jury trial and due process under Blakely and Cunningham, and argued insufficient evidence supported the great bodily injury finding based on the victim's pregnancy. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full after de novo review, denied petitioner's request for a stay, and dismissed the habeas petition with prejudice. The court reasoned that the aggravating factors justifying the sentence were supported by the record and that the evidence of the victim's pregnancy and related injuries met the legal standard for great bodily injury.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves multiple related lawsuits by billboard companies against the City of Los Angeles challenging enforcement of municipal code provisions regulating Supergraphic Signs and Off-Site Signs, which are large advertisements often spanning building facades. Previously, the court ruled that code sections 14.4.4.B.9 and B.11 were unconstitutional on their face because their exceptions granted city officials unfettered discretion that could allow content-based restrictions in violation of the First Amendment, and it issued an injunction barring enforcement of those sections against certain plaintiffs. Following that ruling, companies erected signs without permits, the city issued citations citing other code violations and safety concerns, and the companies filed new actions seeking to enforce or extend the injunction, obtain preliminary relief, or stay proceedings. The court addresses motions to enforce the prior injunction, for new injunctive relief based on it, to amend or reconsider related injunctions, and for stays, while analyzing the city's permitting processes and the impact of a subsequent Interim Control Ordinance that bans such signs without relying on the invalidated provisions.

free speechbusiness & regulatorycivil rights

This case was a class action lawsuit brought by female student athletes against the Alhambra School District and City of Alhambra alleging sex discrimination in athletic programs and facilities in violation of Title IX and related constitutional and state laws. After the class was certified, the parties reached a settlement providing for new facilities, equitable access, funding, and monitoring, and Plaintiffs were determined to be prevailing parties entitled to attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. On remand from the Ninth Circuit, which vacated the prior fee order for failing to properly apply the lodestar method and explain reductions, the Court recalculated fees by assessing reasonable hours and local rates while accounting for factors such as the duration of litigation, counsel's expertise, and results achieved, awarding a reduced lodestar amount without enhancement and addressing additional fees and costs incurred on appeal and remand. The Court denied requests for a 25% multiplier and certain post-judgment adjustments while rejecting objections to the rates and hours claimed.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved a personal injury claim by U.S. citizen Glenda Hornsby against Lufthansa German Airlines under the Montreal Convention, stemming from turbulence during a February 2007 flight from Frankfurt to Los Angeles while she resided temporarily in Germany. Lufthansa moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that Hornsby's principal and permanent residence at the time was Germany, which would place the case outside U.S. courts under Article 33(2). The court denied the motion, holding that jurisdiction existed because Hornsby's principal and permanent residence remained in the United States. The reasoning focused on her intent to return to the U.S., evidenced by maintained ties such as a California driver's license, bank accounts, voting rights, and tax obligations, despite her temporary stay and work in Germany on a renewable permit.

proceduretorts & liability

The case was a federal habeas corpus petition filed by a California state prisoner convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder after driving an associate to a location where the associate shot at two people, wounding one. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full. The court denied and dismissed the petition with prejudice, concluding that any unexhausted or defaulted claims were barred and that the remaining challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and other trial issues failed under the applicable standards of review. The judgment was entered accordingly, with service on the parties.

criminal law

This case involved a motion to dismiss an indictment charging defendant Ricardo Servando Frutos-Lopez with unlawful reentry into the United States after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The defendant argued that a prior Nevada district court ruling had collaterally attacked and invalidated his 2001 removal order, which was based on his 1999 conviction for second-degree robbery as an aggravated felony, making the current indictment defective. The court denied the motion, holding that the Nevada order dismissed only the earlier criminal case without vacating the underlying removal order itself. The court further reasoned that the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez established that a robbery conviction under an aiding-and-abetting theory qualifies as an aggravated felony, confirming that the immigration judge had correctly advised the defendant during the original removal proceedings.

immigrationcriminal law

The case involved outdoor advertising companies challenging the City of Los Angeles's sign ordinance, which imposes a blanket ban on off-site signs and supergraphic signs unless permitted under specific plans, development agreements, or relocation agreements, and separately restricts signs within 2,000 feet of freeways with limited exceptions for building identification and certain wall signs. Plaintiffs sought summary judgment on their claims that the ordinance's exceptions granted city officials unfettered discretion in violation of the First Amendment. The court granted the motion, finding that the lack of objective standards in the exceptions created a risk of self-censorship and that the freeway exposure provision was similarly flawed due to discretionary exemptions. The decision rested on prior rulings in the case regarding standing and the facial challenges to the ordinance's permitting scheme.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

In this class action, former temporary employee Leisa Elliot sued staffing company Spherion Pacific Workforce, LLC, alleging violations of California Labor Code sections 201, 203, 226, 510, 558, and 1194, the FLSA minimum wage provision, and PAGA penalties, based on claims of untimely final wages, unpaid time spent searching for assignments or in orientation, and incomplete wage statements. Both parties moved for summary judgment on the undisputed facts. The court granted the defendant's motion and denied the plaintiff's, holding that the nature of temporary employment meant no wages were due during breaks between assignments or for the employee's independent job search efforts, that orientation time was properly handled, and that wage statements complied with statutory requirements or were time-barred. The decision rested on the legal conclusions drawn from facts showing employees understood the intermittent assignment process and had no expectation of immediate payment upon assignment end.

labor & employment