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

Petitioners challenged the district court's denial of restitution to them and others who asserted that they have been harmed as a result of the offenses for which Frederick Scott Salyer had been convicted. Petitioners petitioned for a writ of mandamus filed pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771. The court concluded that the district court committed legal error in denying restitution because of Salyer's claimed financial status and the potential availability of civil remedies. To the extent that the district court's denial of restitution rested on a determination that complex issues of fact would complicate or prolong the sentencing process, the record was unclear as to whether the district court conducted the balancing test required by 18 U.S.C. 3663A(c)(3) and determined from facts on the record that the burden on the sentencing process of determining restitution would outweigh the need to provide restitution to victims. Accordingly, the court granted the petition and remanded with instructions. View "In re: Morning Star Packing Co. v. USDC, Sacramento" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued Robert Silverman and his law firm on behalf of a class of Filipino teachers recruited to work in several school districts in Louisiana. Plaintiffs alleged that Silverman aided and abetted a human trafficking scheme in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. 1589, 1590, 1592, 1594, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968; breached his fiduciary duties to members of the plaintiff class; and committed legal malpractice through his role in procuring H-1B non-immigrant visas for the teachers. Silverman brought this interlocutory appeal from the district court's denial of his special motion to strike plaintiffs' second amended complaint on the ground that plaintiffs' state law claims violated California's anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16, and invoked Noerr-Pennington immunity against all of plaintiffs' claims. The court joined its sister circuits and held that the denial of a motion for Noerr-Pennington immunity from liability was not an immediately appealable collateral order. The court further held that it did not have pendent jurisdiction over the Noerr-Pennington issue and did not reach the merits of this issue. View "Tanedo, et al v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sch., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued the City of Lancaster under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Article I, Section 4 of the California Constitution, requesting declaratory and injunctive relief from the City's policy of permitting prayers that mention Jesus. Plaintiffs argued that both the invocation at issue and the City's prayer policy amounted to an establishment of religion. The invocation did not proselytize, advance, or disparage any faith. The court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the City, through its prayer practice, placed its official seal of approval on Christianity where the City has taken every feasible precaution to ensure its own evenhandedness. Therefore, the court held that the district court correctly determined that neither the invocation at issue nor the City's prayer policy constituted an unconstitutional establishment of religion. For the same reasons that plaintiffs' First Amendment claim failed, their state claim failed as well. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rubin, et al v. City of Lancaster" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from a union dispute involving local union officials who diverted union resources in an attempt to establish a new competing union. At issue on appeal was whether section 501 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. 501, created a fiduciary duty to the union as an organization, not merely the union's rank-and-file members. The court held that it did. Because defendants were not entitled to an authorization defense, the record was sufficient to support the jury's finding that defendants violated their fiduciary duties to UHW under section 501. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding irrelevant evidence. The district court properly issued the permanent injunction. The court upheld that district court's interpretation of the verdict form and its denial of defendants' motion to alter or amend the judgment. There was no abuse of discretion in the district court's ruling on the challenge to the special verdict. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "SEIU, et al v. NUHW, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g). Because defendant was charged with a single, continuous act of possession over a ten-minute period, the court found no error in the district court's failure to give a specific unanimity instruction. The court concluded that the majority of the prosecutor's statements during closing argument were not improper, and that those that were improper did not result in substantial prejudice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Ruiz, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with fourteen counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 stemming from his scheme to defraud his employer. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal, a new trial, and for an arrest of judgment. The court rejected defendant's argument that routine transmissions occurring during the interbank collection process were not made for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud or in furtherance thereof; the district court erred in the jury instructions; there was insufficient evidence; and the wire fraud statute was unconstitutional. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Jinian" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitioned for review of a decision by the BIA ordering his removal from the United States because he violated the terms of his student visa. The court denied the petition, rejecting petitioner's contention that he was eligible for cancellation of removal because he could meet the required ten years of continuous presence in the United States. Petitioner claimed that he qualified for the special continuous presence exception available to honorably discharged aliens who have served in active duty status in the United States military, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(3), because he was out of the country completing military service in South Korea. View "Lim v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and others sought and received LASIK eye surgery with a Nidek EC-5000 Excimer Laser System ("Laser") to correct farsightedness. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, claimed that, had they known that the FDA had not approved the Laser for this use, they would not have consented to the surgeries. The court held that the complaint did not state a claim under the California Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act, Cal. Health & Saf. Code 24171 et seq., because the surgeries were not "medical experiments" subject to the protection of the Act. Plaintiff did not have standing to sue for injunctive relief under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code 1750 et seq., and his other substantive claim was preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq. Plaintiff's common-law fraud by omission claim was expressly preempted by the preemption provision in the Medical Device Amendments. Even if it were not, it was impliedly preempted because it amounted to an attempt to privately enforce the FDCA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. View "Perez, et al v. Nidek Co., Ltd., et al" on Justia Law

Luvdarts sued mobile wireless carriers, who own multimedia messaging networks (MMS networks), for copyright infringement. At issue was whether the carriers could be held liable for copyright infringement that allegedly occurred on their networks. Because Luvdarts failed to allege adequately that the carriers had the necessary right and ability to supervise the infringing conduct, the district court properly determined that they could not prevail on their claim of vicarious copyright infringement. Because Luvdarts failed to allege adequately that the carriers had the necessary specific knowledge of infringement, it could not prevail on its claim of contributory copyright infringement. Accordingly, Luvdarts failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted and the district court properly dismissed its complaint with prejudice. View "Luvdarts LLC, et al v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, et al" on Justia Law

Debtors filed a Chapter 13 petition and the Trustee objected to debtors proposed bankruptcy plan on the ground that it was not proposed in good faith because of the "miniscule" payments to unsecured claims while debtors were living in a $400,000 home, making payments on various luxury and unnecessary items, and failing to commit one hundred percent of their disposable income to the plan. The bankruptcy court overruled the objection and the bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) affirmed. The court concluded that Congress's adoption of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, 11 U.S.C. 1325(a), foreclosed a court's consideration of a debtor's Social Security income or a debtor's payments to secured creditors as part of the inquiry into good faith under section 1325(a). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the BAP. View "In re: David Welsh, et al" on Justia Law