Robert Edward Jones

This case is an insurance coverage dispute in which Clarendon National Insurance, the insurer for general contractor Providence Builders, sued American States Insurance, the insurer for subcontractor Woodmaster, seeking equitable contribution, declaratory judgment, and breach of contract after settling a personal injury suit brought by a Woodmaster employee who fell on a job site. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on issues including the duty to defend and indemnify under an additional insured endorsement, the effect of Oregon worker’s compensation exclusivity rules, a statute limiting indemnity in construction contracts, and policy exclusions. It granted summary judgment to defendants on the duty to defend, finding that the underlying complaint did not allege facts implying Woodmaster’s fault so as to trigger coverage. The court found that the policy provided coverage and granted summary judgment to plaintiff on that point but deferred any ruling on the duty to indemnify because it depends on factual proof of Woodmaster’s actual liability rather than complaint allegations alone.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

The case involved defendant Kenneth Ray Freeman, charged with receipt and possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252. The court considered his motion to suppress evidence from a November 2006 warrantless search of his mobile home by ICE agents during a "knock and talk," along with later statements and seizures tied to that search. The court granted the motion in full after finding no valid consent to the entry, based on credibility determinations and the totality of circumstances showing the consent was not voluntary and free from coercion. All evidence obtained from the illegal search and any derivative evidence, including from a subsequent arrest warrant, was suppressed under the Fourth Amendment and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. The government was directed to show cause why the indictment should not be dismissed.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involves a plaintiff stopped by Portland police officers for riding her bicycle without a light at night in an unmarked car, who questioned their identity, fled toward her home, and was forcibly detained and arrested for interfering with officers and the light violation; she was later acquitted on the interference charge but convicted on the light violation. The plaintiff sued the city and officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for illegal seizure, unlawful arrest, and malicious prosecution, along with state-law claims for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and sought punitive damages. The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and granted summary judgment to defendants on the IIED claim, finding the officers' conduct insufficiently extreme to meet the legal threshold. It denied summary judgment on the remaining claims due to genuine issues of material fact regarding the stop, identification, use of force, and prosecution, and denied the request to bar punitive damages because a jury could infer malice or evil intent.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff sued Equifax Information Services LLC under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, claiming negligent and willful violations after a jury trial resulted in a $200,000 emotional distress award on the negligence claim but no punitive damages on the willfulness claim. The court addressed plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs, applying the lodestar method to determine reasonable hourly rates and hours while adjusting for partial success. It reduced the requested attorney fees from $154,773 to $117,096.80 after excluding excessive time and applying a lower rate for certain work. The court denied expert witness fees under Rule 37(c) due to defendant's reasonable belief it could prevail on the punitive damages claim, but awarded $3,339.20 in other costs. The decision relied on Ninth Circuit precedent regarding fee-shifting statutes and partial success in litigation.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves claims by plaintiff Juntao Cai against defendant DaimlerChrysler AG (DCAG), a German corporation, for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising from an employment agreement for a position in China following plaintiff's prior work for DCAG's Oregon subsidiary, Freightliner. DCAG moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), arguing insufficient contacts with Oregon. The court granted the motion after finding that DCAG's activities did not meet the requirements for either general jurisdiction (substantial or continuous and systematic contacts) or specific jurisdiction (purposeful direction of activities at the forum and relatedness to the claims) under the Due Process Clause, as the Oregon long-arm statute extends only to due process limits and the relevant negotiations and employment occurred primarily in China and Germany. The alternative forum non conveniens motion was deemed moot, and the action was dismissed without prejudice.

procedurelabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves former employees of Smurfit-Stone Container Corporation and their dependents alleging that the company improperly altered or terminated their health benefits after early retirement, in violation of collective bargaining agreements. The plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of those agreements under LMRA § 301, common law fiduciary duty, Oregon wage laws, and ERISA equitable estoppel. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss, allowing the LMRA claims of two plaintiffs under the 1997 agreement to proceed while dismissing other claims because the 1995 agreement included a reservation of rights permitting plan changes, and it granted leave to amend the complaint.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

This case arose from a material witness proceeding in which Brandon Mayfield was detained but never charged or called before a grand jury, after which the court ordered the government to return his seized property and destroy copies. The government moved to amend that order to retain copies of the materials for use in potential future civil litigation, internal investigations, or congressional inquiries. The court granted the motion to amend, rescinding the destruction requirement and permitting retention of copies under conditions that protect non-Mayfield individuals' identities and private information, while also unsealing most related filings but denying selective disclosure requests. Core reasoning centered on the fact that much of the proceeding was already public, Rule 6(e) grand jury secrecy protections were largely moot, and the government had a legitimate need to maintain records outside ordinary civil discovery rules in this closed criminal matter.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This multidistrict litigation involves current and former personal lines claims representatives employed by Farmers Insurance Exchange who brought collective and class actions alleging they were misclassified as exempt from overtime under the FLSA and seven states' laws, seeking unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages. Following a three-week bench trial on the bifurcated liability issue, the court concluded that auto physical damage claims representatives and certain property and other claims representatives were improperly classified as exempt, while the remaining representatives were properly exempt. The court found the employer's conduct willful for statute of limitations purposes and determined that it failed to establish good faith defenses to liability or liquidated damages. On motions for clarification and reconsideration, the court issued amended findings addressing issues including state law preemption, willfulness, and class certification under state overtime laws.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved claims by Planned Parenthood clinics and individual doctors against the American Coalition of Life Activists and related defendants under the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act for alleged threats and interference with abortion services. A jury awarded compensatory damages totaling over $500,000 and substantial punitive damages against the defendants. On remand from the Ninth Circuit solely to review the punitive awards under due process standards, the district court applied the Gore guideposts concerning reprehensibility of conduct, ratio to compensatory damages, and comparable penalties. The court concluded that the awards were not grossly excessive or arbitrary and affirmed them in full while declining to revisit liability or other issues outside the mandate.

abortioncivil rightstorts & liabilityprocedure

In Galicia v. Crawford, petitioner Ramon Ledezma-Galicia, a permanent resident alien convicted in 1988 of sodomy in the first degree, moved to extend a temporary restraining order and sought habeas relief to block his deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) as an aggravated felon, arguing that the statute lacked explicit retroactive intent and violated due process by impairing rights existing at the time of his conviction. The government countered that Ninth Circuit precedent in Park v. INS upheld retroactive application and that the Supreme Court’s decision in INS v. St. Cyr did not alter that result. The court examined the statutory text and history, concluding that Congress had provided a sufficiently clear indication of intent to apply the aggravated felony definition retroactively, including to convictions predating the 1996 IIRIRA amendments, and that the application did not unfairly disrupt the petitioner’s expectations under his plea agreement. The court therefore dissolved the temporary restraining order and denied the habeas petition.

immigrationcriminal law

This multidistrict litigation involved current and former personal lines claims representatives suing Farmers Insurance Exchange under the FLSA and seven states' overtime laws, alleging they were wrongly classified as exempt administrative employees and thus denied overtime pay. After a three-week bench trial on liability, the court found that FIE improperly classified auto physical damage claims representatives and certain other specified categories as exempt, but properly classified the remaining claims representatives as exempt from overtime requirements. The decision rested on evidence of the employees' actual job duties, which in some cases did not satisfy the primary duty tests for the administrative exemption under federal and state law. The court also concluded that FIE's misclassification was willful for statute of limitations purposes and that the company failed to prove its good faith defenses.

labor & employment

In this case, plaintiffs challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's denial of their petition to delist the Lost River and shortnose sucker fishes from the endangered species list under the Endangered Species Act, arguing that new information showed population recovery. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment under the Administrative Procedure Act and a motion to supplement the administrative record. It denied summary judgment on the first claim, finding that the agency's conclusion lacked sufficient explanation and was not supported by the record, and remanded for further agency action or a status review. The court granted summary judgment on the second claim due to plaintiffs' failure to provide required pre-suit notice. It also granted the motion to supplement the record with documents relevant to the agency's consideration of all factors.

environmentfederal powerprocedure

The case involved the detention of Maher Mofeid Hawash, arrested on March 20, 2003, as a material witness under 18 U.S.C. § 3144 in connection with an ongoing grand jury investigation. The court ordered that the detention hearing be closed to the public to avoid disclosing grand jury matters, citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(5) and Supreme Court precedent on grand jury secrecy, while noting that the witness's identity and detention status could be public. It applied the material witness statute to conclude that Hawash's testimony was material and that flight risk justified detention, supported by clear and convincing evidence, but directed that detention not be indefinite. The court ordered the government to either depose the witness or present him before the grand jury by April 25, 2003, with a further closed hearing set for April 29, 2003.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from unsuccessful applicants for federal airport security screener positions at Portland International Airport who sued the Transportation Security Administration and its contractor, NCS Pearson, alleging race, gender, national origin, age, and veterans' preference discrimination in the post-9/11 hiring process under Title VII, the ADEA, the ATSA, and related state law. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction requiring retesting and hiring of class members. The court denied the motion after finding that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative prerequisites for their federal claims, that the evidence did not demonstrate unlawful discrimination sufficient to support injunctive relief, and that the state-law claim likewise lacked merit for preliminary relief. The ruling was based on the lack of administrative exhaustion and insufficient showing of discrimination in the testing and hiring procedures.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involves Louisiana-Pacific's effort to enforce a 1996 nationwide class action settlement regarding defective Inner-Seal siding by seeking an injunction against a Minnesota state court judgment. The federal district court granted the motion and issued a permanent injunction preventing the state court from entering judgment on portions of a jury verdict awarding damages for siding installed before 1996 that were covered by the settlement's release of claims. The court reasoned that it retained exclusive jurisdiction over the settlement, the claims fell within the broad definition of "Settled Claims," and the injunction was necessary to protect its jurisdiction and effectuate the agreement under exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act.

proceduretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involves a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by petitioner Greg Wilson to prevent Oregon from retrying him a third time on three counts of aggravated felony murder arising from the 1992 killing of Misty Largo during a kidnapping. The district court declined to adopt the magistrate judge's recommendation granting the petition and instead dismissed it, permitting the retrial. The court reasoned that the second jury's acquittals on other aggravated murder counts and convictions on lesser included offenses did not bar retrial on the unresolved aggravated felony murder counts, as the verdicts were inconsistent, the jury had not acquitted on those specific charges or their lesser included felony murder offenses, and double jeopardy principles did not apply to preclude further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned wrecking yard owners who sued the City of St. Helens and city council members after repeated denials of their annual license renewal applications, claiming violations of due process and equal protection under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1982, plus tortious interference with contract under the Oregon Tort Claims Act, stemming from the city's enactment of Ordinance No. 2808 regulating wrecker certificates. The court addressed the defendants' motion for summary judgment along with related evidentiary motions. It granted summary judgment in part on the state-law tort claim, reasoning that the city's adoption of the ordinance involved discretionary policy choices and procedures for which the Oregon Tort Claims Act provides immunity, and denied the motion in part as to the federal constitutional claims while allowing plaintiffs time to amend their complaint; the other motions were denied as moot.

civil rightsbusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

In this patent infringement case, QSIndustries sued Mike's Train House for allegedly infringing four patents on model train sound systems by continuing to sell Proto-Sound I devices after terminating their license agreement and by developing Proto-Sound II. The court held a Markman hearing to construe the patent claims and denied all three of the defendant's motions for summary judgment on non-infringement. The reasoning relied on intrinsic evidence from the patents and prosecution history to interpret the claims, found factual disputes preventing summary judgment on the Proto-Sound II issues, and determined that the license agreement's arbitration clause required sending the Proto-Sound I claims to arbitration.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns U.S. Bank's petition to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act of a class action lawsuit filed by respondent Dennis Strand in the Central District of California, which alleged violations of the Fair Credit Billing Act and breach of contract arising from credit card billing practices. Strand moved to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted the motion and dismissed the petition, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act does not create an independent basis for federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and that the federal claim in the underlying class action pending in another district does not confer jurisdiction here.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Thomason v. Kitzhaber, a former Oregon inmate who is wheelchair-bound due to a spinal injury sued state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that prison medical staff violated his Eighth Amendment rights by showing deliberate indifference to his chronic pain over nearly two decades through ineffective treatments and denial of a spinal cord stimulation device. The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court held that the claims were barred by claim preclusion based on a prior similar lawsuit against state officials. It further reasoned that even if not precluded, the extensive medical records showed ongoing treatment and at most a difference of medical opinion, which does not constitute the deliberate indifference required for an Eighth Amendment violation.

civil rightscriminal law