Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The court agreed to rehear this case en banc to clarify under what circumstances the exhaustion requirement of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1415(l), barred non-IDEA federal or state law claims. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and her son, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants where the district court dismissed her claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff did not initially seek relief in a due process hearing and therefore, failed to comply with one of the exhaustion-of-remedies requirement of the IDEA. The court held that the IDEA's exhaustion requirement was not jurisdictional and that plaintiff's non-IDEA federal and state-law claims were not subject to the IDEA's exhaustion requirement. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment.

Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering a mother and her daughter. Petitioner appealed his denial of federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, raising a number of different claims. The court agreed with the district court that there was no showing of any impropriety or appearance of impropriety from the trial judge. The court affirmed the denial of the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing because the court concluded that they lacked merit. The court agreed with the district court that the state courts adequately considered all mitigating evidence in sentencing defendant to death and therefore, affirmed the denial of that claim. The court further held that since defendant was still pursuing his first post-conviction petition when, in accordance with the suggestion of the state supreme court, he sought to amend his first petition, there was no "previous collateral proceeding." Hence, there was no adequate and independent state ground supporting the trial court's refusal to hear the claims of ineffective assistance at trial and on direct appeal. Therefore, the court remanded only those claims for consideration by the district court.

Plaintiff, the mother of Jerry Amaro, filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim against defendants for the use of excessive force, which resulted in injuries that caused Amaro's death. At issue was whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel should apply where a plaintiff believed she had a section 1983 claim but was dissuaded from bringing the claim by affirmative misrepresentations and stonewalling by the police. The court held that equitable estoppel did apply to the circumstances and affirmed the district court's judgment on that issue.

Plaintiffs claimed that defendants, owners and managers of a for-profit website called DMV.org, violated federal and state unfair competition and false advertising laws by actively fostering the belief that DMV.org was an official state DMV website, or was affiliated or endorsed by a state DMV. The district court held that defendants violated section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), but rejected plaintiffs' claim under California's unfair competition statute. The district court issued an injunction ordering DMV.org to present every site visitor with a splash screen bearing a disclaimer and denied monetary relief and an award of attorney's fees to plaintiffs. Both sides appealed. The court held that plaintiffs had established sufficient injury for Article III standing and that plaintiffs had met both prongs of the test in Jack Russell Terrier Network of Northern California v. American Kennel Club, Inc. for Lanham Act standing. The court held that the district court committed no error in holding that defendants violated the Lanham Act but remanded for the district court to reconsider the duration of the splash screen in light of any intervening changes in the website's content and marketing practices, as well as the dissipation of the deception resulting from past practices. The court held that the district court did not err in denying damages. The court held that because the district court erred in finding that defendants'c conduct was not exceptional and that plaintiffs had unclean hands, its denial of attorney's fees was an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the court remanded for the district court to consider the award of attorney's fees anew. The court held that the district court's findings that defendants were jointly and severally liable were not clearly erroneous. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to hold DMV.org in contempt for technical breaches of the injunction. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding with instructions.

Defendants appealed from their convictions for conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery; conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine; possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime; and aiding and abetting. Defendants argued that the district court erred in refusing to provide an entrapment instruction to the jury. The court held that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support a finding by the jury that defendants were induced by the government to commit the crimes, one of the two necessary elements of entrapment defense. Consequently, the court affirmed and held that the district court did not err by refusing to give the entrapment instruction.

This case stemmed from a so-called bubble ordinance enacted by the Oakland City Council, which made it an offense to knowingly and willfully approach within eight feet of an individual seeking entry to a reproductive health clinic if one's purpose in approaching that person was to engage in conversation, protest, counseling, or various other forms of speech. Plaintiff, a minister who regularly stood outside clinics seeking to engage women in what he called a "friendly conversation" to dissuade them from having an abortion, was convicted on two separate violations of the ordinance and subsequently challenged the ordinance in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, contending that the ordinance infringed upon the freedom of speech and violated the federal constitution's Due Process Clause, as well as state and federal guarantees of equal protection of the laws. The court held that the ordinance was facially constitutional. The court also held that Oakland's enforcement policy was a constitutionally invalid, content-based regulation of speech and remanded to the district court in order for that court to craft a remedy that ensured that Oakland would adopt and henceforth apply a policy that enforced the ordinance as written, in an evenhanded, constitutional manner. The court further held that the success of plaintiff's challenge to whether Oakland could apply the ordinance to situations in which doing so would prevent plaintiff from communicating his message depended on Oakland's future enforcement policy and the particular circumstances in which that policy could be applied. Therefore, the court did not reach that challenge but also did not preclude plaintiff from bringing such a challenge in the future. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding with instructions to grant plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in part and to grant him relief consistent with the opinion.

Appellants appealed the district court's order awarding them attorney fees following settlement of their claims against appellees brought under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619, and California law. At issue was whether the district court erred by deducting some of the hours billed and lowered the hourly rates requested by appellants. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion either by relying, in part, on its own knowledge and experience, or by setting an hourly rate of $350 for appellants' lawyers. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

This case stemmed from petitioners' suit against defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 206 et seq., forced labor in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1589, unjust enrichment, and violations of California and New York labor laws. At issue was whether the district court erred by refusing to resolve petitioners' claim of exemption from arbitration under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 1, and Section 12-1517 of the Arizona Aribration Act (AAA), 12-517 A.R.S., before compelling arbitration pursuant to those acts. The court agreed that petitioners made a strong argument that the district court erred but, nonetheless, held that this case did not warrant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. Therefore, the court denied the petition for mandamus.

Plaintiff, an inmate, sought enforcement of his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA or Act), 5 U.S.C. 552, request to the DEA for records pertaining to a certain confidential informant. In response, the DEA submitted a Glomar response, refusing to confirm or deny the existence of any responsive records pertaining to the informant, citing exemptions 6 and 7(C), (D), and (F) of the Act. The court held that because the government officially confirmed the informant's status as an informant in open court in the course of official proceedings, the government could not continue to "neither admit nor deny" his informant status in response to a FOIA request. Therefore, the court held that the government must provide an index of the documents it has and make whatever additional objections to disclosure it deemed appropriate. Accordingly, the district court's grant of summary judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff sued R.R. Street & Co., Inc. (Street), which designed and manufactured a machine used in the dry cleaning business, and several other defendants for contribution to environmental cleanup costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675. Plaintiff also raised various state law causes of action, including claims for trespass and nuisance. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Street on all claims and plaintiff appealed. The court held that plaintiff failed to present evidence giving rise to a genuine dispute as to any material fact with respect to its CERCLA claim, nuisance claim, and trespass claim. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Street.