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

Capital One appealed the district court's order remanding a putative class action lawsuit to California state court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4. The court concluded that there must ordinarily be facts in evidence to support a finding that two-thirds of putative class members were local state citizens, which was one of the local controversy exception's requirements, if that question was disputed before the district court. A pure inference regarding the citizenship of prospective class members may be sufficient if the class is defined as limited to citizens of the state in question, but otherwise such a finding should not be based on guesswork. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Mondragon v. Capital One Auto Finance, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Russian citizen, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court granted the petition, concluding that petitioner met his burden of presenting evidence that the Russian government was unable or unwilling to control the nongovernmental actors who persecuted him because he was a homosexual; in order to obtain relief petitioner requested, he was not required to demonstrate that the Russian government sponsored or condoned the persecution of homosexuals or was unwilling for that reason to control persecution; and the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Doe v. Holder" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of robbery and assault. At issue was whether petitioner procedurally defaulted a federal habeas claim. In Harris v. Reed, the Supreme Court instructed that a procedural default did not bar consideration of a federal claim unless the last state court rendering a judgment in the case clearly and expressly stated that its judgment rested on a state procedural bar. Applying Harris and its Ninth Circuit progeny, the court held that petitioner did not default his claim and vacated the district court's dismissal of his habeas petition. Under Chambers v. McDaniel, the cursory rejection of petitioner's appeal made it quite plausible that the Oregon Court of Appeals reached the merits of petitioner's Sixth Amendment claim. View "Smith v. Hill" on Justia Law

Defendant plead guilty to charges under 21 U.S.C. 841. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of is motion to suppress the fruits of a home search. The court concluded that it was not objectively reasonable for agents to conclude that a houseguest had authority to consent to a search of the master bedroom and bathroom; it was not objectively reasonable for the agents to conclude that the houseguest had authority to consent to a search of the area beyond the door inside the master bedroom; the government's protective sweep fallback argument was waived; and the plain view doctrine did not apply. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to the district court. View "United States v. Arreguin" on Justia Law

HFI filed suit against the Bank alleging trademark infringement and related claims, contending that the Bank's use of its "Hana Bank" mark infringed HFI's "Hana Financial" mark because its use of the word "Hana" in connection with financial services would likely cause confusion. A party claiming trademark ownership must establish priority and one of the ways that a party could establish priority was through the constructive use doctrine known as "tacking." Tacking required a highly fact-sensitive inquiry, and the jury decided the issue after receiving an instruction that correctly conveyed the narrowness of the doctrine. In this instance, the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on trademark priority where, viewing the marks in context and in their entirety, the ordinary purchasers could perceive them as conveying the same idea or meaning or evoking the same mental reaction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of HFI's motion for judgment as a matter of law on trademark priority and upheld the jury's verdict. View "Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision finding him ineligible for removal because his conviction for racketeering under Arizona law constituted an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(J). The language in the indictment, plea agreement, and sentencing order was clear and convincing evidence that petitioner was convicted of an offense coming within the definition of "aggravated felony." Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition, concluding that the BIA did not err in determining that the Arizona conviction constituted an aggravated felony and that petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b. View "Murillo-Prado v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss an indictment against him for violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9), which prohibits persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from possessing firearms for life. Applying United States v. Brailey, the court concluded that defendant's domestic violence conviction did not divest him of "core" civil rights and he could not qualify for the civil rights restored exception to section 922(g)(9). The court rejected defendant's argument that the civil rights restored exception violated the Equal Protection Clause for the same reasons the court articulated in United States v. Hancock. Like the First, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits, the court applied intermediate scrutiny to section 922(g)(9) and held that it was constitutional on its face and as applied to defendant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Chovan" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for unlawfully dealing in firearms, and making false statements to customs officials to gain entry into the United States. The court concluded that defendant was not entitled to his proposed jury instructions, which required the government to prove that defendant was not acting as an authorized agent of a federal firearms licensee; the evidence was sufficient to prove that he engaged in the business of dealing firearms; in regards to the false statements convictions, the government presented sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of materiality; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. King" on Justia Law

Petitioner, the mother of twin girls, filed an application under the Hague Convention on International Aspects of Child Abduction, 19 I.L.M. 1501, after the girls' father, a resident of the United States, did not return them to Mexico. The district court held that the parties abandoned Mexico as the children's habitual state of residence when their parents decided they should, for an indefinite period, spend the majority of their time in the United States. The court concluded that the district court judge did not err in deciding that the parents shared a settled intention to abandon Mexico- they had immediate plans to avail the twins of government assistance in the United States as well as longer-term plans to educate the girls in the United States. The father could prevail by showing that he and the girls' mother shared a settled intention to abandon Mexico as the twins' sole habitual residence, that there was an actual change in geography, and that an appreciable period of time had passed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Valenzuela v. Michel" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, farmworkers who are Mexican citizens, filed suit against Peri & Sons, a Nevada corporation that produces, harvests, and packages onions. Plaintiffs alleged that the corporation violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. Deferring to the DOL's interpretation, the court concluded that the district court erred in ruling that the corporation was not required to reimburse its employees during the first week of work for inbound travel and immigration expenses to the extent that such expenses lowered their compensation below the minimum wage. The court further concluded, inter alia, that the district court erred in concluding that the farmworkers had not pled their breach of contract claims with sufficient specificity where such allegations were sufficient to give the corporation fair notice and to make plaintiffs' breach of contract claims plausible. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the farmworkers' FLSA claims to the extent that they accrued within three years of filing; reversed its dismissal of their breach of contract claims; affirmed the dismissal of their claims under Nevada Revised Statutes 608.140; and reversed the dismissal of their other statutory and constitutional claims to the extent they accrued within two years of filing. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc." on Justia Law