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

Petitioner, born in Mexico, petitioned for review of the government's reinstatement of a prior order of removal, following his illegal reentry into the United States after having been removed. The court rejected, as unsupported and as contrary to the text of 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5), petitioner's assertion that the 1989 removal order was "superseded" or otherwise invalidated simply because a later removal order existed. The court held that petitioner's substantively illegal reentry met the requirements of section 1231(a)(5) that he had "reentered the United States illegally," notwithstanding the fact that he tricked the border official into allowing him physically to enter. The government's decision to arrest and remove petitioner when he showed up for his interview did not prejudice him. Accordingly, the court need not decide whether there was a due process violation. View "Tamayo-Tamayo v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

In this appeal, appellant principally argued that, because the judgments obtained by the Petitioning Creditors were on appeal when the involuntary petition was filed, the bankruptcy court should have dismissed the petition as not meeting the requirements of section 303(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. First, the court held that the bankruptcy court did not err in denying appellant's motion to dismiss for defective service of process. The court then held that an unstayed non-default state judgment was not subject to bona fide dispute for purposes of section 303(b)(1). Therefore, the bankruptcy court did not err in finding that the Petitioning Creditors held claims meeting the requirements of section 303(b)(1). Finally, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that further discovery would have been unlikely to produce any evidence material to the pending summary judgment motions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "In re: Georges Marciano, et al v. Steven Chapnick, et al" on Justia Law

The Association sued the County, alleging that the County had breached its obligation to provide certain vested healthcare benefits in perpetuity. The Association alleged that the County had implicitly promised to provide these benefits. The California Supreme Court's recent decision in Retired Employees Ass'n of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange (REAOC II) recognized that a county could form a contract with implied terms under specified circumstances. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that the amended complaint failed to state a cause of action. Nevertheless, in light of REAOC II, the court could not agree with the district court's decision to deny the Association leave to amend on the ground that such amendment would be futile. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with REAOC II. View "Sonoma Cnty. Ass'n of Retired Emp. v. Sonoma Cnty." on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Crevier Motors and BMW, asserting ten California causes of action. At issue was whether BMW timely removed this proposed class action involving Crevier, a California automobile dealership, to federal court by invoking the diversity jurisdiction provision of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d). Because nothing in plaintiff's complaint indicated that the amount demanded by each putative class member exceeded $25,000, it fell short of triggering the removal clock under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b). The court rejected plaintiff's remaining arguments. Because BMW timely removed under section 1446(b), the court reversed the district court's remand of plaintiff's proposed class action to Orange County Superior Court. In light of that conclusion, the court did not decide whether to join the other circuits in recognizing a "revival exception," which according to BMW gave it another thirty days to remove when plaintiff expanded her suit from one strictly against Crevier to one against all California-BMW dealerships. View "Kuxhausen v. BMW Financial Services NA LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial of her asylum application as time-barred. Petitioner claimed that her untimely application should be excused because she suffered from a mental illness that constituted an extraordinary circumstance pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(D) and 8 C.F.R. 1208.4(a)(5). To the extent that petitioner challenged the merits of the BIA's extraordinary circumstances determination, the court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because the underlying facts were disputed. Further, the BIA did not err in its application of the regulations and therefore, the court rejected petitioner's claim to the contrary. Accordingly, the court dismissed in part and denied in part. View "Gasparyan v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

The CDCR, in an effort to meet the religious exercise needs of prison inmates, maintained paid full-time and part-time chaplain positions of five faiths: Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Native American, and Protestant (the Policy). Plaintiffs claimed, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, that various entities and individuals violated their federal and state constitutional rights by refusing to hire a paid full-time Wiccan chaplain and by failing to apply neutral criteria in determining whether paid chaplaincy positions were necessary to meet the religious exercise needs of inmates adhering to religions outside the five faiths. Because plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded facts supporting a plausible claim under the Establishment Clause and the California State Constitution, the court reversed and remanded both claims to the district court for further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' remaining claims. View "Hartmann, et al v. California Dept. of Corrections, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs alleged that they purchased billions of dollars worth of mobile handsets containing defendants' LCD panels and that the prices they paid for those handsets were artificially inflated because defendants had orchestrated a global conspiracy to fix the prices of LCD panels. The district court certified to the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) "the question whether the application of California antitrust law to claims against defendants based on purchases that occurred outside California would violate the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution." Because the underlying conduct in this case involved not just the indirect purchase of price-fixed goods, but also the conspiratorial conduct that led to the sale of those goods, the court answered in the negative. To the extent a defendant's conspiratorial conduct was sufficiently connected to California, and was not "slight and casual," the application of California law to that conduct was "neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair," and the application of California law did not violate that defendant's rights under the Due Process Clause. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's order dismissing plaintiffs' California law claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "AT&T Mobility LLC, et al v. AU Optronics Corp., et al" on Justia Law

Defendants pled guilty to one count of receipt of stolen mail and one count of mail theft. During the 2010 holiday season, defendants drove through neighborhoods on "Christmas shopping" trips in search of packages on porches, doorways, or in community mailboxes to steal. On appeal, defendants argued that the district court erred by including certain expenses the USPS incurred to avert future mail thefts as loss, for purposes of both sentencing and restitution. The court held that the district court was not clearly erroneous in concluding that the expense the USPS incurred was a reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm resulting from defendants' actions. The USPS theft prevention measures were directed at defendants' ongoing crime spree that concluded after the USPS changed its delivery procedures. The court held, however, that the district court plainly erred in ordering restitution for the USPS's expenses where mail theft - not unlawful possession - caused the USPS to change its procedure. Accordingly, the court affirmed defendants' sentences but vacated that portion of the restitution order awarding restitution for the USPS's expenses. View "United States v. May" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from plaintiffs' complaint asserting state and federal causes of action against eight defendants. At issue on appeal was the district court's award of attorney's fees and costs to Plaintiff Joseph Padgett. The court vacated the district court's award of costs and attorney's fees because the district court provided no explanation of how it calculated them. The court remanded to the district court for an explanation of how it used the lodestar method to reduce Padgett's fees and how it calculated Padgett's reduced costs. For the same reason, the district court erred in failing to explain why it denied costs to the prevailing defendants. While the district court had discretion to depart from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) in appropriate cases, the court could not review its unexplained order for abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Padgett, et al v. Loventhal, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to aggravated identity theft and two other counts in connection with an ATM skimming scheme. On appeal, defendant argued that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 extended the district court's fact-finding responsibility to all matters controverted, no matter how they were presented, throughout the entire sentencing phase. The court held that Rule 32(i)(3)(B) required a district court to address only unresolved factual objections to the presentence report, and defendant failed to dispute any fact in the report. Similarly, when explaining a sentence, the district court need not address every assertion made within every argument advanced before the court during sentencing. The district court properly considered the presentence report and the parties' arguments and then adequately explained its reasonable and generous resolution imposing a below Guidelines sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Petri" on Justia Law