Legal News Updates

Case Summaries

Asset Forfeiture

[03/08] US v. Brummer
In defendant's appeal from the district court's order that he forfeit two firearms and six rounds of ammunition pursuant to his conviction of knowingly and willfully failing to declare firearms to a common carrier, the order is affirmed where the indictment charging defendant with violating 18 U.S.C. section 922(e) included a notice of forfeiture, and thus the district court therefore was required to order forfeiture of the property.

[03/02] US v. Cheeseman
In a prosecution of defendant for violating 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(3), which criminalizes possession of firearms and ammunition by an unlawful user or addict of a controlled substance, district court's judgment ordering the forfeiture of over 600 firearms and ammunition is affirmed where: 1) the possession of firearms and ammunition is sufficient for a district court to find that the property was "involved in" a section 922(g)(3) offense; and 2) forfeiture did not violate the Excessive Fines Clause as the value of the firearms was at most two times the maximum penalty imposed by the statute.

[02/26] US v. Meux
Following defendant's conviction and sentence of 37 months' imprisonment and order to pay a mandatory restitution of $134,218.52, a magistrate judge's order granting the government's motion for turnover of funds that was held in custody by a US Marshal in an unrelated case is affirmed as the magistrate judge had authority to hold a hearing and to order the turnover of funds to satisfy the lien. Furthermore, record reflects that defendant was provided with essentially the same due process protections he wold have been accorded in garnishment proceedings.

Read More

Class Actions

[03/03] Byers v. Intuit, Inc.
In plaintiff's putative class action on behalf of U.S. taxpayers against the IRS and a consortium of companies in the electronic tax preparation and filing industry (FFA) claiming violations of the Independent Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA) in the charging of fees in exchange for providing e-filing services, as well as a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, dismissal of both claims is affirmed where: 1) the district court was correct in holding that the IOAA does not apply to the FFA members, as it only applies to a government agency and none of the exceptions in Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc., 176 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir. 1999) apply; and 2) the district court did not err in dismissing the Sherman Act claim as the FFA members are entitled to conduct-based implied antitrust immunity with respect to the anti-competitive action taken pursuant to the Ceiling Provisions of the 2005 Agreement with the IRS.

[03/02] Orosco v. Napolitano
In an action seeking a writ of habeas corpus to compel defendants to issue him a law enforcement certification showing his cooperation with law enforcement under 28 U.S.C. section 2241, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the language of section 1184(p) made it abundantly clear that the decision to issue a law enforcement certification is a discretionary one.

[03/02] Pfizer v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiffs' action against Pfizer, the manufacturer of Listerine mouthwash, pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law claiming that Pfizer marketed the mouthwash in a misleading manner by representing that the use of it can replace the use of dental floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis, defendant's petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn an order certifying the class action is granted as the ruling certifying a class consisting of all persons who purchased Listerine in California during a six-month period is overbroad, and In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), does not require a different disposition in this case.

Read More

Consumer Protection

[03/09] Martinez v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.
In an action under Section 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), claiming that a mortgage lender charged plaintiffs an illegal underwriting fee, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) the clear and unambiguous language of RESPA Section 8(b) did not reach the practice of "overcharging"; and 2) the UCL claims alleging "unfair" and "fraudulent" conduct were preempted by the National Bank Act, and the allegations of "illegal" conduct failed to state a claim.

[03/08] Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. US
In an action by a law firm seeking declaratory relief, arguing that plaintiff was not bound by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act's (BAPCPA) debt relief agency provisions and therefore could freely advise clients to incur additional debt and need not make the requisite disclosures in its advertisements, the Eighth Circuit's order rejecting the district court's conclusion that attorneys are not "debt relief agencies" under BAPCPA, upholding application of BAPCPA's disclosure requirements to attorneys, and finding BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) unconstitutional, is affirmed in part where: 1) attorneys who provided bankruptcy assistance to assisted persons were debt relief agencies under the BAPCPA; and 2) BAPCPA section 528's requirements were reasonably related to the government's interest in preventing consumer deception. However, the court of appeals' order is reversed in part where BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) prohibited a debt relief agency only from advising a debtor to incur more debt because the debtor was filing for bankruptcy, rather than for a valid purpose.

[03/02] Pfizer v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiffs' action against Pfizer, the manufacturer of Listerine mouthwash, pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law claiming that Pfizer marketed the mouthwash in a misleading manner by representing that the use of it can replace the use of dental floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis, defendant's petition for writ of mandate seeking to overturn an order certifying the class action is granted as the ruling certifying a class consisting of all persons who purchased Listerine in California during a six-month period is overbroad, and In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298 (2009), does not require a different disposition in this case.

Read More

Injury & Tort Law

[03/09] Zia Trust Co. v. Montoya
In an action for excessive force brought by family members of a man defendant-officer shot and killed while responding to a domestic disturbance, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the court could not say that a van fifteen feet away, which according to the plaintiffs was clearly stuck on a pile of rocks, gave defendant probable cause to believe that there was a threat of serious physical harm to himself or others that would justify his use of force.

[03/09] Espinosa v. City & County of San Francisco
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming excessive force by defendants-officers, denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where: 1) defendants failed to show as a matter of law that plaintiff's decedent did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy; 2) the district court properly found that defendants failed to show as a matter of law that the emergency and exigency exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement applied; 3) defendants failed to show that there were no questions of fact regarding whether a security guard had apparent authority to consent and implied consent; and 4) the district court did not err in finding that there were genuine issues of fact regarding whether the officers intentionally or recklessly provoked a confrontation.

[03/05] Doe v. S. Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a minor child and her adoptive parents against defendant, an Adoption Specialist with the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law claims against SCDSS under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) when a state involuntarily removes a child from her home, thereby taking the child into its custody and care, the state has taken an affirmative act to restrain the child's liberty, triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause and imposing "some responsibility for the child's safety and general well being"; 2) because it would not have been apparent to a reasonable social worker in defendant's position that her actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, she is entitled to qualified immunity; 3) prospective adoptive parents have no substantive due process right to the disclosure of a child's history of sexual abuse; and 4) district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims for gross negligence against SCDSS is vacated and remanded for consideration of the applicability of section 15-78-60(25).

Read More

Judges & Judiciary

[06/30] ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES ASS'N, INC. v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY
The Court denied plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate to disclose records relating to reimbursement of travel expenses for judges and management employees of the Court pursuant to the California Public Records Act, because the Act did not apply to the requested disclosure.

[06/28] US v. PARKER
Evidence seized under a warrant issued by a trial commissioner who was also an administrative assistant at the county jail was properly excluded, because the commissioner was not a neutral and detached party.

[06/08] PEOPLE v. PESCADOR
A judge, substituted into a trial following three days of testimony, can fairly and competently preside without first reading all prior testimony, as long as he familiarized himself with pertinent portions of the record before making specific rulings.

Read More

Judgment Enforcement

[03/04] Tivo Inc. v. Echostar Corp.
In a patent infringement action against EchoStar, relating to the software component of plaintiff's patent that allows television users to simultaneously record and play broadcasts using what is commonly known as a digital video recorder (DVR), district court's decision finding defendants in contempt of a permanent injunction is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its decision to hold contempt proceedings; 2) there was clear and convincing evidence before the district court to find that both types of EchoStar receivers continue to infringe and that it was not an abuse of discretion for the ocurt to find EchoStar in contempt of the infringement provision; and 3) given defendant's refusal to disable the DVR functionality in its existing devices and the fact that its original attempts to design around TiVo's patent were wholly unsuccessful, the district court had ample justification for its determination that court pre-approval of any new design-around effort was necessary to prevent future infringing activity.

[02/26] Office Depot Inc. v. Zuccarini
In a judgment debtor's appeal from an order appointing a receiver to take control of and auction off some of debtor's domain names in order to satisfy the judgment, the order is affirmed where: 1) Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024, 1030 (9th Cir. 2003), was still an accurate statement of California law, and domain names are intangible property subject to a writ of execution; and 2) domain names were personal property located wherever the registry or the registrar were located.

[02/23] Gonzalez-Vera v. Townley
In an action seeking to invoke one of 18 U.S.C. section 3523's enforcement procedures, the appointment of a guardian to help collect a judgment against an individual under the Witness Protection Program, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) Congress intended to make guardianship available only where the Attorney General found that the protected person was failing to make reasonable efforts?that is, only where disclosure to a guardian was necessary to enforce the judgment; and 2) here, the Attorney General determined that the protected person was making reasonable efforts to satisfy the judgment.

Read More

Public Utilities

[03/04] Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm.
In a telecommunications company's appeal from (1) the district court's confirmation of an arbitral order affirming the California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) requirement that plaintiff lease entrance facilities to competitor local exchange carriers (LECs) at Total Element Long Run Incremental Cost (TELRIC) rates for the purpose of interconnection; and (2) the district court's order vacating the arbitrator's affirmance of CPUC's conclusion that 47 C.F.R. section 51.319(e)(2)(ii)(B) applied only on routes where competitive LECs were not "impaired" as to DS3 transport circuits, the orders are affirmed where: 1) FCC regulations authorized state public utilities commissions to order incumbent LECs to lease entrance facilities to competitive LECs at regulated rates for the purpose of interconnection; and 2) the plain language of the governing regulation, 47 C.F.R. section 51.319(e (2)(ii)(B), limited a competitive LEC to a maximum of ten DS1 circuits along any route regardless of whether the competitive LEC was impaired as to DS3 lines.

[03/03] Galbiso v. Orosi Pub. Util. Dist.
In plaintiff's action against a public utility district seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the utility district from conducting a "tax sale" of plaintiff's parcels for the collection of sewer assessments and a petition for a writ of mandate to correct the utility district's alleged abuse of discretion, judgment sustaining defendant's demurrer is affirmed where: 1) the trial court correctly sustained a general demurrer to complaint for injunctive relief on all causes of action; 2) trial court correctly sustained the general demurrer to the writ of mandate petition; and 3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend.

[02/23] Michigan Bell Tel. Co. v. Covad Communications Co.
In an action by a state telephone-utility commission and several competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs) against Michigan Bell (an incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC)), summary judgment in favor of Michigan Bell and order vacating Michigan Public Service Commission's order is affirmed as Michigan Bell offers its CLECs an interconnection facility at TELRIC rates and entrance facilities at competitive rates, which is in perfect accordance with the plain language of an order issued by the FCC.

Read More