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

In this interlocutory appeal, Motorola appealed from the district court's preliminary injunction to enjoin Motorola temporarily from enforcing a patent injunction that it obtained against Microsoft in Germany. The underlying case before the district court concerned how to interpret and enforce patent-holders' commitments to industry standard-setting organizations (SSOs), which established technical specifications to ensure that products from different manufacturers were compatible with each other. Specifically, the case involved the H.264 video coding standard set by International Telecommunications Union (ITU), and the 802.11 wireless local area network standard set by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). The court held that, under the unique circumstances of this case, the district court's narrowly tailored preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

HOS was arrested and indicted for various offenses. He claimed that he was a juvenile when these offenses were committed. HOS subsequently appealed the district court's grant of the U.S. Attorney's request to revoke its prior determination as to HOS's age based on a birth certificate the U.S. Attorney had obtained from the Mexican government that indicated that HOS was 23-years-old at the time of the charged offenses. The district judge thus ordered that the case proceed against HOS as an adult. The court rejected HOS's argument that the government was precluded from re-litigating the issue of his age. On the basis of the record before the court, the court could not conclude that the district judge abused his discretion or that his finding that HOS was an adult was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order. View "United States v. HOS" on Justia Law

Petitioner claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea-bargaining process. Plaintiff alleged that counsel advised him to reject a plea offer of six years' imprisonment without alerting him that he was being charged with a crime that would qualify as a "third strike" under California law. He later entered an open plea and was sentenced to a three strikes sentence of twenty-five years to life in prison. Without granting an evidentiary hearing, the California Supreme Court summarily denied his state petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Following the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, the court reversed the district court's denial of the petition for habeas corpus and remanded to the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing on petitioner's claims. View "Miles v. Martel" on Justia Law

In Chambers v. Mississippi, the United States Supreme Court clearly established that the exclusion of trustworthy and necessary exculpatory testimony at trial violated a defendant's due process right to present a defense. This clearly established federal law applied at the time the California Supreme Court decided People v. Cudjo, the subject of this habeas appeal. The facts in Chambers were materially indistinguishable from the facts in this appeal. Therefore, the California Supreme Court's decision was contrary to clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court, and the error was not harmless. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of petitioner's habeas petition and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cudjo, Jr. v. Ayers, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Austrian-owned OBB after sustaining personal injuries as a result of her attempt to board a moving train in Innsbruck. In this case, the court considered what acts could be attributed to a foreign state in applying the commercial activity exception to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1602 et seq. The court concluded that Rail Pass Experts' sale of the Eurorail pass could not, under Doe v. Holy See, be imputed to OBB. Plaintiff did not allege a day-to-day, routine involvement of OBB in Eurorail, much less Rail Pass Experts. Therefore, the court held that OBB engaged in no commercial activity within the United States that would strip it of its immunity. View "Sachs v. Republic of Austria, et al" on Justia Law

The Forest Service limited the use of motor vehicles to certain roads in the century-old Eldorado National Forest (ENF). Concerned about the impact of the limitation on their activities, a group of miners and prospectors challenged the Forest Service's decision. The court held that the miners had standing to bring this suit. Still, the Forest Service acted within its authority when it prohibited cross country vehicle traffic and limited motor vehicle use to certain designated roads in the ENF. The "public roads" provision in 36 C.F.R. 228.4(a)(1) did not create an exception to the 2008 Decision because the roads on which motor vehicles were prohibited ceased to be "public roads," as reasonably defined by the Forest Service. View "Public Lands For The People, Inc., et al v. AGRI, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs became permanent residents and immigrated to the United States. However, due to visa quotas and a serious backlog, by the time plaintiffs received their family-sponsored visas, their children were no longer eligible to accompany them as recipients of derivative visas. At issue was whether these children were entitled to relief under the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), 8 U.S.C. 1153(h). The court concluded that the plain language of the CSPA unambiguously granted automatic conversion and priority date retention to aged-out derivative beneficiaries. Accordingly, the BIA's interpretation of the statute conflicted with the plain language of the CSPA and was not entitled to deference. View "De Osorio, et al v. Scharfen, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Merck in their diversity action alleging wrongful death. Plaintiffs' son died after being administered a Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccine manufactured by Merck. On appeal, plaintiffs contended that the district court erred in applying the standards of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-22, to their individual claims for damages. Having concluded that Section 22 of the Act generally applied to limit tort liability in a parent's claim for individual injuries, the court determined that plaintiffs' suit was a "civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine" and thus limited by the Act. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Holmes, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Defendants appealed from the district court's order granting plaintiffs partial injunctive relief prohibiting defendants from detaining any individual "based on knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person was unlawfully present within the United States." Plaintiffs contended that defendants have a "custom, policy and practice of racial profiling and practice of stopping Latino drivers and passengers pretextually and without individualized suspicion or cause, and of subjecting them to different, burdensome, stigmatizing and injurious treatment once stopped," under the auspices of enforcing immigration laws. While defendants raised a number of issues on appeal, the court only addressed the order granting "partial injunctive relief." Consequently, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting preliminary injunctive relief. View "De Jesus Ortega Melendres, et al v. Arpaio, et al" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed the district court's order granting summary judgment to appellees in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 after appellant spent nineteen years in prison convicted of murders that he did not commit. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment to appellees on appellant's fabrication-of-evidence claim, and affirmed on that basis. The court reversed, however, the district court's denial of appellant's motion to amend his complaint and remand to the district court with instructions to allow appellant to plead an explicit Fifth Amendment violation. The exceptional circumstances in this case persuaded the court that a remand was necessary to avoid manifest injustice. View "Hall v. City of Los Angeles, et al" on Justia Law