Melissa Earll, a deaf plaintiff, sued eBay alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California Disabled Persons Act after she was unable to telephonically verify her identity to sell items on the platform as required by eBay's policies. eBay moved to dismiss or transfer the case based on a forum selection clause in its user agreement that required disputes to be resolved in Santa Clara County, California. The court granted the motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California and denied the motion to dismiss as moot. It reasoned that the forum selection clause was valid and enforceable, applied to the plaintiff's claims as they related to use of the website, and did not contravene public policy because the plaintiff could still pursue her claims in California without being deprived of her day in court.
This case involves a lawsuit by Hans Joachim Keil, a Samoan diplomat, against several individual defendants following his arrest on charges of being an illegal alien, despite his production of a facially valid U.S. passport and statements that he was a U.S. citizen, military veteran, and diplomat. The defendants moved for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds and sought to stay all discovery pending resolution of those motions. The court denied the motion to stay in part, permitting limited discovery focused on the information available to the defendants at the time of the arrest regarding Keil's immigration status or basis for arrest. The core reasoning was that Keil's complaint sufficiently alleged a violation of clearly established law under precedents like Harlow v. Fitzgerald, Mitchell v. Forsyth, and Anderson v. Creighton, making a complete stay of discovery inappropriate while still limiting the scope to avoid broad-reaching inquiries.
In United States v. Johnson, the defendant, a weightlifting coach, was convicted by a jury of eight counts of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e) for secretly filming female athletes, including minors, undressing and weighing themselves in a room with a hidden camera. The district court granted the defendant's motion for acquittal notwithstanding the verdict due to insufficient evidence. The court reasoned that the statute requires persuading a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction, specifically a lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area, which involves more than mere nudity or incidental exposure, and the videos at issue did not meet this standard as they captured only partial or shaded views without enhancement or other indicators of lasciviousness. The court noted that the conduct might violate other state or federal laws, such as video voyeurism, but did not constitute the charged federal offense.
In United States v. Johnson, a jury convicted the defendant, a weightlifting coach, of eight counts of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) and (e) for using a hidden camera to film female athletes, including minors, undressing to weigh themselves in a private room. The district court granted the defendant's motion for acquittal notwithstanding the verdict due to insufficient evidence. The court reasoned that the federal statute requires persuading a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct, such as a lascivious exhibition, for the purpose of producing visual depictions, but the facts showed only unknowing surreptitious filming without any such persuasion or direction, which instead constituted video voyeurism under other federal or state laws.
In this case, plaintiff Debby Rose sued Wal-Mart, Cox Health, and the Springfield-Greene County Health Department under the Americans with Disabilities Act, claiming the defendants discriminated against her by denying her access to public establishments while accompanied by her Bonnet Macaque monkey, which she alleged was a service animal for her anxiety disorder and agoraphobia; the health department had sent letters advising food service businesses not to admit her with the monkey. The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's motion. The court reasoned that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that her conditions substantially limited a major life activity, that her recent diagnosis was based solely on subjective reports, and that the monkey performed specific tasks qualifying it as a service animal under the ADA rather than merely providing comfort.
.jpg?width=900)