Frank C. Damrell jr

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.

environmentfederal power

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.

criminal lawcivil rightspropertyprocedure

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).

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

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.

torts & liabilityprocedure

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.

civil rights

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.

religious libertycivil rights

The case involved a challenge by rural health clinics and a federally-qualified health center to California's law ending Medicaid reimbursement for adult dental, podiatry, and chiropractic services provided by these clinics. The court ruled that the plaintiffs could sue under federal law and that the state must obtain federal approval before changing its Medicaid plan to exclude these services, but it also held that these services are not mandatory benefits under federal Medicaid law. Therefore, the state law did not conflict with federal requirements regarding the services themselves. The court granted partial summary judgment, issuing declaratory and injunctive relief pending federal approval but denying relief on the mandatory services claim.

healthcarefederal power

The case concerned challenges by individual homeowners Carolino and Espinosa, along with corporate plaintiffs HPG, Twin Builders, and HBP, to foreclosure sales conducted by defendant Aurora Loan Services on properties in California. Plaintiffs alleged that Aurora violated state statutory requirements for non-judicial foreclosures by proceeding without proper assignment of the mortgages and power of sale. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Aurora's motion to dismiss the complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court's reasoning centered on the corporate plaintiffs' lack of associational or third-party standing to assert the claims, along with deficiencies in the individual claims such as failure to allege tender and lack of subject matter jurisdiction over certain aspects.

propertyprocedure

This case involves a petition by the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board under § 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act seeking a temporary injunction to require Sacramento Coca-Cola Bottling Co. to recognize and bargain with Teamsters Local 150 following the merger of the company's in-house union (SCCBE) with the Teamsters. The court granted the petition for an interim order pending the Board's final disposition. The core reasoning was that the merger was valid, preserved substantial continuity in the bargaining unit and existing collective bargaining agreement through October 2013, and that the employer lacked a lawful basis to withdraw recognition, including because a contract bar applied and any employee petition did not demonstrate the requisite majority support for decertification.

labor & employment

This case involves plaintiffs who entered into investment consulting and advisory agreements with defendants Benning Financial Group and Randy Benning, alleging that defendants made unauthorized, risky trades causing substantial losses in their accounts, and asserting claims including breach of contract, fraud, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants moved to stay the federal action and compel arbitration pursuant to arbitration clauses in the 2006 Advisory Agreements. The court granted the motion, staying proceedings and ordering arbitration, reasoning that the Federal Arbitration Act applied to the valid arbitration provisions covering disputes arising from the agreements, defendants had not waived their arbitration rights by removing the case or other conduct, and plaintiffs raised no valid challenges to the clauses' enforceability.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Deanna Walters' claims arising from alleged misconduct in the servicing of her residential mortgage loan originally obtained from Fidelity Mortgage of California, Inc. and later handled by Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, including misapplication of payments, improper late fees, unauthorized hazard insurance charges, and false notices of default threatening foreclosure. The defendants moved to dismiss and strike various claims in the second amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(f). The court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, dismissing certain claims such as those for fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and RICO violations with or without leave to amend based on the sufficiency of the pleaded allegations, while allowing others like breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to proceed; the motion to strike was denied entirely.

propertybusiness & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case arose from a 2009 collision in international waters off Taiwan between a Liberian-registered chemical tanker owned by the defendants and a Hong Kong-registered replica sailing vessel, which allegedly caused physical and emotional injuries to the six U.S. citizen plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed suit in the Eastern District of California seeking damages under general maritime law, while the defendants had already initiated a limitation proceeding in the Hong Kong Admiralty Court. The defendants moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, citing the existing Hong Kong action, the Asian connections of the incident and parties, and the burden on a California forum. The court granted the motion, holding that Hong Kong provided an adequate alternative forum and that the balance of private and public interest factors—including ease of access to evidence, the location of witnesses, and the foreign nature of the dispute—strongly favored dismissal despite the plaintiffs' choice of forum.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved the Winnemem Wintu Tribe, a non-federally recognized Native American group, and its leaders suing multiple federal agencies and officials for alleged damage to cultural and religious sites along the McCloud River, failure to federally recognize the tribe, and related statutory and constitutional violations under laws such as ARPA, NHPA, AIRFA, RFRA, and the APA, along with Bivens claims. Plaintiffs sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief after actions like tree cutting and site alterations by the USFS. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), primarily dismissing claims for lack of standing due to the tribe's non-federal recognition status, statute of limitations issues, and failure to state certain claims while allowing others to proceed under notice pleading standards.

civil rightsreligious libertyenvironmentprocedure

This case involves an insurance coverage dispute in which Markel American Insurance Company sought a declaratory judgment regarding its obligations under an Employment Practices Liability Insurance Policy issued to G.L. Anderson Insurance Services, Inc. and Gary Anderson. The policy covered damages from wrongful employment practices but excluded claims based on conduct committed with wanton, willful, reckless, or intentional disregard of the law. The dispute arose after a former employee sued the defendants for sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and defamation under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, leading to a settlement that Markel partially funded while reserving rights. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion in part, ruling that certain claims fell within the policy exclusion based on undisputed evidence of intentional conduct, while denying summary judgment on allocation of settlement amounts for other claims due to factual disputes.

business & regulatorylabor & employment

This case involved a proposed class action by California consumers against Snapple Beverage Corp. alleging that the company's "All Natural" labeling and marketing of its beverages was false and misleading because the products contained high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which plaintiffs claimed is not a natural ingredient. Plaintiffs asserted claims under California's False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, seeking damages and injunctive relief on the grounds that the labeling violated state prohibitions on deceptive advertising and unfair business practices. The court granted in part and denied in part Snapple's motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), concluding that certain claims were adequately pled while others failed due to pleading deficiencies, the safe harbor doctrine under federal food labeling regulations, or lack of cognizable damages. The decision applied federal pleading standards and analyzed whether Snapple's conduct was authorized by FDA policy or state law exceptions.

business & regulatory

The case involves the California Earthquake Authority suing Metropolitan West Securities and Wachovia Bank for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and unfair business practices. Plaintiff moved to disqualify defendants' counsel, Munger Tolles & Olson, on grounds of an ongoing attorney-client relationship creating a conflict of interest in concurrent representation. The court granted the motion after determining that the parties' retainer agreement, which had no defined duration and required written notice for termination, remained in effect despite no work being performed since 2002. Because the agreement was never terminated in writing as specified, Munger's representation of the defendants violated its duty of loyalty to the Authority as a current client.

procedure

This case involves a dispute over failed real estate development partnerships in California, where plaintiffs Natomas Gardens Investment Group, LLC and Orchard Park Development, LLC alleged that defendants including John Sinadinos and others mismanaged projects such as Florin Vineyards and Vintage Creek, commingled funds, made misrepresentations about investments, and induced unfavorable concessions in operating agreements. The plaintiffs brought claims including violations of RICO, fraud, and conversion. The court ruled on multiple motions to dismiss the second amended complaint and for a more definite statement, granting the motions in part and denying them in part. It dismissed certain RICO conspiracy and fraud claims against specific defendants without leave to amend due to insufficient pleading, but allowed other claims such as conversion of money and some RICO allegations to proceed, while denying requests for a more definite statement.

business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involves plaintiff Susan Reese, an echo technician employed by defendant Barton Healthcare Systems, who alleged she developed a disability from repetitive job duties causing pain in her shoulders, wrist, and neck, and that Barton failed to accommodate her by limiting her to five echo exams per day, instead harassing her, reducing her hours, changing her schedule to include weekends, and taking other adverse actions leading to her claims under the ADA and state law for discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate, and defamation. Defendant moved for summary judgment, contending Reese was not disabled or a qualified individual and that its actions were legitimate and not discriminatory. The court denied the motion in full, holding that Reese raised triable issues of fact as to whether she was disabled under the ADA, whether she could perform essential job functions with reasonable accommodation, whether adverse employment actions occurred because of her disability or in retaliation, and whether defamatory statements were made by defendant's agents. The core reasoning relied on medical evidence, testimony from supervisors and the plaintiff, performance records, and the timing of actions to establish genuine disputes of material fact precluding judgment as a matter of law.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case is a civil forfeiture in rem action filed by the U.S. government seeking to seize approximately $328,495.75 from a bank account held by Loomis Wealth Solutions LLC, which the government alleges consists of proceeds traceable to a multi-state Ponzi scheme involving loan fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, and money laundering. Flagstar Bank, asserting it was a victim of the fraud through funds it advanced via a line of credit, filed a claim based on a constructive trust and moved for judgment on the pleadings. The court denied Flagstar's motion and granted the government's motion to strike the claim and answer. The core reasoning was that Flagstar lacked prudential standing because, under relevant precedent, a voluntary transferor or constructive trust beneficiary does not hold an interest superior to the government's forfeiture claim.

criminal lawpropertyprocedure

This case involved minor plaintiffs, through a next friend, suing California judicial officials over allegedly excessive caseloads for attorneys and judges in Sacramento County dependency proceedings, claiming violations of federal and state constitutional and statutory rights to meaningful hearings and effective counsel. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss after oral argument on justiciability issues. It reasoned that federal abstention was required under Younger v. Harris because the claims implicated ongoing state dependency cases, adequate state-court remedies existed for raising federal issues, and any relief would improperly interfere with state judicial administration and resource allocation decisions. The opinion also noted that practical impediments to relief in state court did not create a procedural bar under Ninth Circuit precedent.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedurefederal power