This case involved environmental groups challenging federal and state agencies' approval of the Paiute Cutthroat Trout Restoration Project, which would use rotenone to eradicate non-native trout from Silver King Creek in a designated wilderness area to restore the threatened native species and aid its recovery under the ESA. The court ruled that the joint EIR/EIS satisfied NEPA, the ESA, and the Clean Water Act, but violated the Wilderness Act. The violation stemmed from the agencies' decision to authorize motorized equipment and the pesticide without properly balancing the competing statutory values of species conservation against preservation of overall wilderness character, particularly the likely loss of sensitive native invertebrate species. Plaintiffs were therefore entitled to a permanent injunction halting the project, while defendants prevailed on the remaining claims.
The case involved plaintiff Jon-Cory Schmidt, whose medical marijuana plants cultivated under California physician recommendations were seized by Nevada County sheriff personnel pursuant to a judicially approved search warrant. After state superior court proceedings, including a motion for return of property and a writ petition, denied relief on the ground that Schmidt was not in lawful possession under California law, he filed a federal complaint asserting claims for unlawful detention of property, conversion, declaratory relief, and a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 equal-protection violation based on the seizure and retention. The district court granted defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, concluding that collateral estoppel from the prior state-court determinations on lawful possession precluded relitigation of that dispositive issue and that the complaint otherwise failed to state a federal constitutional claim. The court further noted the seizure occurred under a valid warrant and rejected due-process arguments as insufficient to avoid preclusion.
This case involves the California Hospital Association's motion for a preliminary injunction against the California Department of Health Care Services to prevent enforcement of a statutory rate freeze on Medicaid (Medi-Cal) reimbursements to hospitals. The court granted the injunction after determining that the plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim under the Contract Clauses of the U.S. and California Constitutions, as the freeze substantially impaired existing hospital reimbursement contracts without adequate justification tied to public health needs. The court rejected arguments that supplemental payments or a new rate-setting methodology mitigated the impairment, and it found irreparable harm because sovereign immunity would bar recovery of lost payments. It also addressed but did not rely on alternative claims regarding lack of federal approval and noncompliance with Medicaid notice and study requirements under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(13)(A) and (30)(A).
In Monroe v. Zimmer U.S. Inc., plaintiff Sara Monroe sued Zimmer for negligence and products liability under California law, alleging that use of its Ambulatory Pain Pump (ZAP) after shoulder surgeries caused glenohumeral chondrolysis by destroying cartilage in her joint. The defendants moved for summary judgment and to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's statistical expert Martin T. Wells under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The court granted summary judgment in part and denied it in part, while denying the motion to exclude Wells, finding him qualified based on his extensive publications and that his analysis of correlations between pain-pump use and chondrolysis was relevant and admissible even if not conclusive on causation.
This case involves three former female students at the University of California, Davis, who were wrestlers and alleged that university officials discriminated against them by removing them from the varsity wrestling team and limiting their athletic opportunities based on gender. The plaintiffs brought claims under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the university maintained an athletic program that discriminated on the basis of sex and whether the individual defendants were responsible for such discrimination. The reasoning centered on evidence that women wrestlers had previously been treated as varsity athletes but were later excluded, despite prior complaints and public pressure, and that the Ninth Circuit had previously identified triable issues on related Title IX compliance.
This case involved a challenge by PLANS, Inc. to the operation of Waldorf public schools by the Sacramento City Unified School District, alleging that the schools' use of anthroposophy-based methods violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the California Constitution by advancing religion. Following a bifurcated Phase I trial on the threshold issue of whether anthroposophy qualifies as a religion, the court granted the defendant's motion for judgment on partial findings under Rule 52(c) after the close of the plaintiff's case-in-chief. The plaintiff presented testimony from only one witness and limited exhibits, which the court found insufficient to satisfy the burden of proof under the factors from Alvarado v. City of San Jose, including whether anthroposophy involves worship of a superhuman power, addresses fundamental questions in a comprehensive manner, or exhibits formal signs of religion such as ceremonies or clergy. The court concluded that the evidence did not establish anthroposophy as a religion for Establishment Clause purposes, ending the case without proceeding to further phases.