United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Articles:

On April 16, 2014, Judge Lucy H. Koh granted SuccessfulMatch.com's motion to dismiss a lawsuit for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted.^[6]

In the underlying case, plaintiffs Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 joined the site PositiveSingles.com, a website operated by SuccessfulMatch.com, which was marketed toward daters with sexually transmitted diseases. Plaintiffs said they were unaware of the fact that the details of their anonymous profiles (i.e., their STD statuses) would be available to all of SuccessfulMatch.com's users. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit in July 2013, alleging violations of California's deceptive business practices law, as well as its Consumer Legal Remedies Act.^[6]

The defendant website company filed a motion to dismiss the case, and Judge Koh granted it, noting that Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 "failed to specifically allege that they saw any of the statements that they claim [were] misleading, or how the website statements impacted their decisions to register with defendant's website." In addition, Koh wrote that the plaintiffs' claims failed due to the fact that they did not "allege how knowledge of defendant's omissions about affiliated sites would have impacted [their] decision to register for PositiveSingles.com."^[6]

In 2014, while O'Bannon v. NCAA was being litigated, a class of D1 student-athletes challenged the NCAA's compensation system for its student-athletes with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of California. The NCAA compensation rules allow the NCAA to use the names, images, and likenesses ("NIL") of its student-athletes while prohibiting the student-athletes from being compensated for such use. The NCAA asserted that the rules are in service of preserving student-athletes' amateur status. Student-athletes claimed that there were Less Restrictive Alternatives ("LRAs") to preserving the student-athletes' amateur status, rather than the compensation system implemented by the NCAA. The NCAA argued that changing the compensation rules would have an anticompetitive effect in relevant consumer markets and would alter the student-athletes' amateur status.^[7]

Following the 9th Circuit's opinion in O'Bannon, the NCAA requested that the Northern District of California issue a judgment on the pleadings in Alston, citing res judicata"translates to “a matter judged”, meaning that the matters at issue have already been litigated and decided based on the merits.".^[8] The NCAA argued that the O'Bannon proceedings required no more than that the NCAA allow member schools to provide full education-related costs of attendance at schools ("COA") to student-athletes and that since the NCAA had already updated its bylaws according to this ruling, the Alston antitrust challenges must not be allowed to proceed. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the matters at issue in O'Bannon were different from those in Alston. One difference was that the student-athletes in Alston challenged limits on non-cash, education-related benefits, unlike the O'Bannon plaintiffs. Both parties filed for summary judgmentRefers to a judgment granted on a claim about which there is no genuine issue of fact and to which the party moving for judgment prevails as a matter of law.. The district court denied the NCAA's motion and granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. The court applied the antitrust law Rule of Reason standard"In any action under the antitrust laws, or under any State law similar to the antitrust laws, the conduct of—
(1) any person in making or performing a contract to carry out a joint venture, or
(2) a standards development organization while engaged in a standards development activity,
shall not be deemed illegal per se; such conduct shall be judged on the basis of its reasonableness, taking into account all relevant factors affecting competition, including, but not limited to, effects on competition in properly defined, relevant research, development, product, process, and service markets. For the purpose of determining a properly defined, relevant market, worldwide capacity shall be considered to the extent that it may be appropriate in the circumstances." in order to discern whether or not the NCAA's compensation rules violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In its ruling on March 8, 2019, the Northern District of California held that the NCAA's limits on education-related benefits unreasonably restrained trade and enjoined, or prohibited, those limits. The court did not hold that the NCAA's limits on compensation unrelated to education violated the Sherman Act. To resolve the challenges, the district court implemented the student-athletes' proposed LRA via permanent injunctionA court order either commanding or preventing an action..^[7]

The NCAA appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. After the NCAA filed their appeal, the State of California enacted the Fair Pay to Play Act, requiring the NCAA and its member institutions to allow student-athletes who are enrolled in California-based member schools to earn compensation from the use of their NILs. In response, the NCAA created a working group that recommended allowing NIL benefits that are education-related and maintain the distinction between college and professional sports, as recognized in the O’Bannon litigation.^[7]

On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmedThe action of an appellate court confirming a lower court's decision. the district court's judgment of liability and injunction, holding that the district court was proper in its conclusion that the NCAA limits on education-related benefits violated the Sherman Act.^[7]

Click here for more information.

On December 19, 2013, Judge Phyllis Hamilton granted class certification in a case filed against Nissan over the car manufacturer's faulty Delta Stroke Sensor breaking system in model year 2004-2008 Armadas and Titans and Infiniti QX56s manufactured prior to 2008. In the underlying case, plaintiffs Brandon and Erin Banks and David Soloway experienced brake failure while driving their cars, alleging that the system was defective and malfunctioned in such a way as to allow up to a 60% loss of power to the vehicle's brakes.

The plaintiffs claimed that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration alerted Nissan about hundreds of complaints the agency received about the faulty breaks, but that the car company failed to tell current owners or potential customers about the known defect. Because the plaintiffs' pleadings exhibited sufficient commonality, numerosity, typicality, and adequacy of legal representation, Judge Hamilton ruled that the class deserved certification, specifically, "[a]ll consumer residents in California who own 2004-2008 Nissan Armada, Titan (equipped with [Vehicle Dynamic Control]), and Infiniti QX56 vehicles manufactured before April 1, 2008 . . . and all consumer residents in California who do not presently own Affected Vehicles but incurred monetary loss caused by the failure of the Delta Stroke Sensor in their Affected Vehicles."^[9][10]

On November 27, 2013, Judge Susan Illston awarded nearly $1 million in attorneys' fees to the children of a woman who was shot 12 times by a police officer without a legitimate law enforcement objective.

In March 2006, Karen Eklund stole a car and led police on a high-speed chase before ramming the stolen vehicle into a police car. California Highway Police officer Stephen Markgraf was the only one to open fire and killed Eklund. Eklund's daughters, minors at the time, filed a wrongful death suit, and a jury awarded them $30,000 each in damages.

The Ninth Circuit later overturned that jury verdict in April 2011 based on Markgraf's qualified immunity defense, meaning that as a state official, he was shielded from liability because he was performing the discretionary functions of his job. At that time, the court also vacated the children's award of attorneys' fees. The court's qualified immunity ruling was withdrawn one year later in April 2012. In April 2013, the federal appeals court reconsidered the case and decided that Markgraf was not immune to the allegations levied against him because he "acted with the purpose to harm unrelated to a legitimate law enforcement objective." Markgraf attempted to further appeal the case to the United States Supreme Court, but his writ of certiorari was rejected in October 2013. The next month, Judge Illston awarded Eklund's daughters approximately $908,961 in attorneys' fees and expenses ($559,861 for the lower court trial, $288,080 for the various appeals to the Ninth Circuit, and $57,428 for the fee petition).^{[11][12][13][14]}

On October 16, 2013, Judge Donna Ryu ruled that California's fishing license fee was unconstitutional due to its tendency to favor in-state applicants over out-of-state applicants. In the underlying case, out-of-state commercial fisherman filed suit over the fee differential charged for their commercial fishing licenses and vessel registration, costs that were usually two to three times more expensive than those for in-state licensees.

The fishermen alleged that the difference in pricing infringed upon their right to equal protection and their right to the same privileges and immunities as citizens of another state. Both parties filed motions for summary judgmentRefers to a judgment granted on a claim about which there is no genuine issue of fact and to which the party moving for judgment prevails as a matter of law. (i.e., a judgment in their favor without a full trial). Defendant Charlton Bonham, director of the California Department of Fish and Game, said that by charging nonresidents more money, the state was simply "recouping [its] fair share" of what was being used by citizens hailing from other states. Judge Ryu found that California was offering an unfair business advantage to its own residents. Judge Ryu denied Bonham's motion for summary judgmentRefers to a judgment granted on a claim about which there is no genuine issue of fact and to which the party moving for judgment prevails as a matter of law., and granted the fishermens', declaring the licensing fee structure unconstitutional.^[15]

Plaintiffs John Teixeira, Steve Nobriga, and Gary Gamaz were barred from opening a gun store within 500 feet of a residential area due to a county zoning law. They filed suit on June 25, 2012, claiming that their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms and to due process and equal protection had been infringed. Their suit was dismissed by Judge Susan Illston, who said that under the United States Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the zoning law was a “presumptively valid restriction.”

The plaintiffs amended their complaint and refiled it, but Judge William Orrick III also dismissed the case on September 9, 2013, writing that not only had they failed to allege the county denied their land use permit without a rational basis, but he was also “unaware of any authority stating or implying that the Second Amendment contemplates a right to ‘convenient access to a neighborhood gun store.’” The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the ordinance as constitutional in October 2017.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag

Judge Wilken ruled that the CalPERS policy on gay and lesbian couples was unconstitutional in May 2012.^[16]

On August 18, 2009, Judge William Alsup issued an injunction against the University of California-Berkeley over construction of a new computer research center for the U.S. Department of Energy. As part of the injunction, the judge ordered environmental impact studies on Strawberry Canyon before any construction could begin.^[17]

Because the project was funded fully by the federal government, Judge Alsup found it was important that a federal agency conduct environmental testing in the interest of the project's sustainability.^[17] After an extensive study by the Department of Energy, it was found that there would be no significant impact to the area where the facility would be built. Judge Alsup ruled in November 2011 that the computer research center construction could begin.^[18]

On March 29, 2010, Judge Susan Illston authorized a class-action lawsuit against nine television makers over allegations of price-fixing. The lawsuit was filed by a group of direct buyers who bought the televisions made by the two companies from 1999 to 2006. As part of the certification, customers in 22 other states and the District of Columbia were able to join the lawsuit.

In October 2012, it was announced that the manufacturers did participate in price-fixing on LCD flat-panel screen televisions. The television makers agreed to a $1.1 billion settlement which directly refunded consumers who were affected by the scheme.^[19]

Judge Richard Seeborg presided in a case involving privacy issues and the social media website, Facebook. A class-action lawsuit was filed in 2007 against Facebook for its use of "Beacon," a program that kept track of a person's purchasing habits and web-browsing activity. As part of the settlement, Facebook agreed to start a nonprofit organization to advocate web privacy. Most of the class did not receive financial damages.^[20]

On September 21, 2009, Judge Jeff White ruled that the federal government did not properly examine the environmental impact of sugar beets created by genetic engineering.^[21] In August 2010, Judge White found that the U.S. Department of Agriculture did not properly ascertain the environmental impact of genetically engineered sugar beets before granting approval. As a result, the judge disallowed the cultivation of the vegetable before a new impact statement was conducted and approval granted from the USDA.^[22]

In June 2009, Judge Wilken blocked a $2-per-hour wage cut for tens of thousands of in-home care workers for elderly and disabled Californians, which had been ordered by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.^[23] Schwarzenegger cited this as an example of federal judges interfering with the rights of California to rule itself.^[24]

However, some local governments blocked Wilken's order, and he re-ordered state officials to remove procedural obstacles immediately. Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Napa, Solano, and Yolo Counties were affected by the plan that temporarily reduced pay for 60 days.^[23] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Schwarzenegger administration's request for a stay of Judge Wilken's decision on July 14, 2009.^[23]

On September 29, 2009, Judge Illston ruled against a land management plan by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management for a California desert. Judge Illston found that a plan to designate 5,000 miles of the West Mojave desert for off-road vehicle use did not take into account environmental impacts on the desert.^[25]

Chief Judge: Richard Seeborg   •  Edward Chen  •  Beth Labson Freeman  •  Edward J. Davila  •  Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers  •  Jon S. Tigar  •  William Orrick III  •  James Donato  •  Vince Girdhari Chhabria  •  Haywood Stirling Gilliam, Jr.  •  Lucy H. Koh (California)

Thelton Henderson  •  William Alsup (California)  •  Saundra Armstrong  •  Charles Breyer  •  Maxine Chesney  •  Phyllis Hamilton  •  Susan Illston  •  Claudia Wilken  •  Jeffrey White  •  

Dal Lemmon  •  Oliver Hamlin  •  Cecil Poole  •  Ogden Hoffman  •  William Morrow  •  John Jefferson DeHaven  •  William Cary Van Fleet  •  Maurice Timothy Dooling  •  John Slater Partridge  •  Vaughn Walker  •  Jeremy Fogel  •  Marilyn Patel  •  James Ware  •  Ronald Whyte  •  Frank Henry Kerrigan  •  Harold Louderback  •  Adolphus Frederic St. Sure  •  Michael Joseph Roche  •  Sherrill Halbert  •  Thomas MacBride  •  Martin Welsh  •  Robert Aguilar (California federal judge)  •  Oliver Carter  •  Barbara Caulfield  •  Herbert Erskine  •  Monroe Friedman  •  Louis Goodman  •  George Harris (California)  •  William Ingram (California)  •  Charles Legge  •  Gerald Levin  •  Eugene Lynch  •  William Orrick Jr.  •  Robert Peckham  •  Charles Renfrew  •  Robert Schnacke  •  Fern Smith (California)  •  William Sweigert  •  John Vukasin  •  Stanley Weigel  •  Spencer Williams  •  Delwen Jensen  •  Samuel Conti  •  Patrica Trumbull  •  Albert Wollenberg  •  Alfonso Zirpoli  •  Lloyd Burke  •  Martin J. Jenkins  •  

Vaughn Walker  •  Thelton Henderson  •  Phyllis Hamilton  •  Marilyn Patel  •  James Ware  •  Michael Joseph Roche  •  Oliver Carter  •  Louis Goodman  •  George Harris (California)  •  William Ingram (California)  •  Robert Peckham  •