| Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published | 
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 
 23-3864 
 | 
Halverson v. Burgum
 Mandamus action seeking to compel Bureau of Indian Affairs compliance was barred by sovereign immunity.  | 
Immunity | 
 | 
D. Forrest | Aug. 22, 2025 | 
| 
 25-4249 
 | 
Thakur v. Trump
 Order  | 
 | 
Aug. 22, 2025 | ||
| 
 S275848  
 | 
Iloff v. LaPaille
 Employers asserting good faith defense to liquidated damages for unpaid minimum wages must show a reasonable attempt to determine the law's requirements and a good faith effort to comply.  | 
Employment Law | 
 | 
J. Groban | Aug. 22, 2025 | 
| 
 B332962 
 | 
Byrne v. Rule 
 Opinion  | 
 | 
Aug. 21, 2025 | ||
| 
 A170383  
 | 
Johnson v. Stoneridge Creek Pleasanton CCRC
 Consumer Legal Remedies Act's fee-recovery provision did not prohibit a continuing care retirement community from funding its defense costs--in a lawsuit brought by a resident--through the monthly fees charged to residents.  | 
Consumer Law | 
 | 
J. Goldman | Aug. 21, 2025 | 
| 
 22-10310  
 | 
U.S. v. Manning
 In light of *United States v. Barker*, courts may not bifurcate a trial on the different elements of a single Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering (VICAR) murder charge.  | 
Criminal Law and Procedure | 
 | 
D. Bress | Aug. 21, 2025 | 
| 
 24-2251 
 | 
U.S. v. State of Alaska
 *Katie John*, interpreting "public lands" in Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, was not clearly irreconcilable with *Sturgeon II*'s interpretation of "public lands" in Title I.  | 
Water Rights | 
 | 
C. Callahan | Aug. 21, 2025 | 
| 
 24-2858 
 | 
Thomson v. Hodgson
 District court erroneously found as a matter of law that rock band Supertramp's royalties-sharing agreement was terminable "after a reasonable time" due to the absence of an express duration.  | 
Contracts | 
 | 
K. Wardlaw | Aug. 21, 2025 | 
| 
 24-3560 
 | 
Sneed v. Talphera
 The potentially misleading nature of "Tongue and Done," a slogan for defendant's under-the-tongue opioid, was insufficient for shareholders to plead falsity under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act.  | 
Securities | 
 | 
K. Lee | Aug. 21, 2025 | 
| 
 23-55803  
 | 
Moncada v. Rubio
 Man born and living in the United States for over 70 years was not a birthright citizen because of his father's apparent diplomatic immunity at the time of his birth.  | 
Constitutional Law, Immunity | 
 | 
A. Johnstone | Aug. 21, 2025 | 
| 
 B334571 
 | 
Modification: Marriage of R.K. and G.K.
 Father in custody proceedings forfeited due process claims on appeal because he never raised them before the trial court.  | 
Civil Procedure, Family Law | 
 | 
K. Yegan | Aug. 20, 2025 | 
| 
 A166451 
 | 
People v. Dejesus-Galindo
 Because jury instructions on propensity evidence did not lower the standard of proof and evidence overwhelmingly supported jury's guilty verdict, any instructional error was harmless.  | 
Criminal Law and Procedure | 
 | 
J. Clay | Aug. 20, 2025 | 
| 
 23-2117 
 | 
U.S. v. Gordon
 Counsel's alleged inaccurate sentencing predictions did not rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel, making an evidentiary hearing unnecessary.  | 
Habeas Corpus | 
 | 
R. Tallman | Aug. 20, 2025 | 
| 
 24-2815 
 | 
The GEO Group v. Inslee
 For intergovernmental immunity analysis, the appropriate comparators for a privately owned and operated civil immigration detention facility are other privately operated civil detention facilities rather than state prisons.  | 
Immunity | 
 | 
W. Fletcher | Aug. 20, 2025 | 
| 
 24-2371 
 | 
Gonzalez v. Herrera
 The First Step Act's time credit scheme allows for the reduction in length of a supervised release term.  | 
Criminal Law and Procedure | 
 | 
S. Mendoza | Aug. 20, 2025 | 
| 
 C102211 
 | 
Gomez v. Superior Court (People)
 Trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's mental health diversion request when prosecution failed to rebut the presumption that the mental disorder was a causal factor.  | 
Criminal Law and Procedure | 
 | 
S. Boulware Eurie | Aug. 19, 2025 | 
| 
 24-4101 
 | 
Youth 71Five Ministries v. Williams
 Religious organization that was denied grant funding based on government rule prohibiting religious discrimination was not entitled to a preliminary injunction because the rule likely withstood rational-basis review.  | 
Constitutional Law | 
 | 
A. Johnstone | Aug. 19, 2025 | 
| 
 24-327 
 | 
Amended Opinion: U.S. v. Plancarte
 Government did not breach plea agreement by submitting supplemental memorandum opining about defendant's "worrying" conduct and past arrest history.  | 
Criminal Law and Procedure | 
 | 
S. Ikuta | Aug. 19, 2025 | 
| 
 24-2997 
 | 
Spatz v. Regents of the University of California
 Because medical residency program's refusal to rank (i.e., hire) plaintiff was an "employment practice of an employer," it fell outside the Age Discrimination Act's scope.  | 
Employment Discrimination | 
 | 
L. Koh | Aug. 19, 2025 | 
| 
 S089619  
 | 
People v. Alvarez
 Trial court did not err in denying motion to sever two murder trials, where similarities in both murders rendered evidence cross-admissible to establish intent and lack of mistake.  | 
Criminal Law and Procedure | 
 | 
J. Groban | Aug. 19, 2025 | 
| 
 S277995  
 | 
People v. Cannon 
 Jury trial waiver procedure under the Sexually Violent Predators Act should be subject only to rational-basis review because it does not implicate a fundamental right or interest.  | 
Criminal Law and Procedure | 
 | 
C. Corrigan | Aug. 19, 2025 | 
| 
 G063421 
 | 
Modification: Anaheim Mobile Estates v. State of California
 Complaint failed to establish that Civil Code section 798.30.5 (limiting mobile home rent increases) is "confiscatory" in nature and thus facially unconstitutional.  | 
Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure | 
 | 
T. Delaney | Aug. 18, 2025 | 
| 
 A170942  
 | 
People v. Skaggs
 Trial court erred by construing non-statutory motion to dismiss on constitutional due process grounds as a section 1385 motion, which led it to incorrectly conclude that it lacked authority to consider the motion.  | 
Criminal Law and Procedure | 
 | 
I. Petrou | Aug. 18, 2025 | 
| 
 G063493  
 | 
Gamo v. Merrell
 Because cost-of-proof fees inherently differ from and do not conflict with elder abuse attorney fees award, elder abuse statute's unilateral provision only allowing for plaintiff fee award was inconsequential to defendant's cost-of-proof fees request.  | 
Civil Procedure | 
 | 
E. Moore | Aug. 18, 2025 | 
| 
 24-3978 
 | 
In Re Subpoena Internet Subscribers
 Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a section 512(h) subpoena cannot issue to a section 512(a) service provider (who merely provides users with internet connection), as a matter of law.  | 
Intellectual Property, Cyber Law | 
 | 
M. Christen | Aug. 18, 2025 | 
| 
 24-2984 
 | 
Grijalva v. ADP Screening & Selection Services Inc.
 While the fact of plaintiff's ineligibility for a program was an "ongoing" event, excepted from the Fair Credit Reporting Act's 7-year reporting limit, the reasons underlying her ineligibility (a suspended nursing license) were not.  | 
Consumer Law | 
 | 
B. Bade | Aug. 18, 2025 | 
| 
 24-3576 
 | 
Gibson v. Cendyn Group LLC
 Las Vegas hotels' use of the same software to provide recommendations for what price to advertise for hotel rooms was insufficient to state an antitrust violation claim.  | 
Antitrust | 
 | 
C. Bea | Aug. 18, 2025 | 
| 
 B331827  
 | 
People v. Pena
 Penal Code section 136.2(i)(1) does not authorize trial courts to issue protective orders for victims of a crime other than the one of which defendant was convicted.  | 
Criminal Law and Procedure | 
 | 
J. Segal | Aug. 15, 2025 | 
| 
 G063037 
 | 
Sandoval v. Pali Institute
 Trial court erred in completely denying camping company's anti-SLAPP motion when some of plaintiff camp attendees' claims involved protected "public debate" speech: gender-identity discussions.  | 
Anti-SLAPP, Education | 
 | 
T. Delaney | Aug. 15, 2025 | 
| 
 G063421 
 | 
Anaheim Mobile Estates v. State of California
 Complaint failed to establish that Civil Code section 798.30.5 (limiting mobile home rent increases) is "confiscatory" in nature and thus facially unconstitutional.  | 
Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure | 
 | 
T. Delaney | Aug. 15, 2025 | 
