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

This appeal relates to a discovery dispute that arose in this action challenging Washington's rules that require pharmacies to maintain a representative assortment of drugs for which there was patient demand and to dispense prescription drugs and drugs approved by the FDA for restricted distribution, unless one of several enumerated exceptions applies. On appeal, Law Center challenged the district court's denial of sanctions and costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d). Concluding that the court had jurisdiction over the appeal, the court affirmed the denial of sanctions under Rule 45(d)(1). The court agreed with the D.C. Circuit's analysis of the amended rule and held that Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(ii) requires the district court to shift a non-party's costs of compliance with a subpoena, if those costs are significant. The court concluded that the district court erred in its interpretation of Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(ii) framing the issue in terms of undue burden, rather than significant expense. Accordingly, the court reversed the denial of costs and remanded for consideration of the proper allocation of costs. View "Legal Voice v. Stormans, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who has an IQ score of 71, appealed the denial of his supplemental security income benefits. The court concluded that plaintiff did not show that his impairments medically equal an IQ score of 60-70, so he has not shown equivalence to all three individual criteria under Listing 12.05C and his condition thus does not equal the listing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of benefits. View "Kennedy v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of China of Korean and Chinese descent, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of petitioner's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). At issue was whether an IJ could use the maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" (i.e. false in one thing, false in everything) to find that material inconsistencies in testimony regarding one claim supported an adverse credibility determination on another claim. The court denied the petition for review, holding that Ninth Circuit precedent permitted the BIA to use an adverse credibility finding on one claim to support an adverse finding on another claim in a pre-REAL ID Act case. View "Li v. Holder" on Justia Law

This litigation arose from the City's recent efforts to complete its power system expansion plan first conceived in 1972 and re-affirmed in 2007. The City owns and operates Idaho Falls Power. Alliance sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the City lacked the power to condemn property outside its boundaries for the purpose of building electric transmission lines. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Alliance, finding that Idaho law did not grant the City (or, by extension, IFP) the power to condemn property outside its corporate limits for the purpose of constructing the transmission lines. Because the power to exercise eminent domain extraterritorially for the purpose of constructing electric transmission lines (1) has not been expressly granted to the City by the state, (2) cannot be fairly implied from the powers that the City has been given by the state, and (3) is not essential to accomplishing the City's objects and purposes, the City does not have that power. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Alliance v. City of Idaho Falls" on Justia Law

Bill Graham, a successful promoter of rock and roll concerts, died testate and his will created individual trusts for his sons, Alexander and David. Nicholas Clainos was the trustee of the trusts and the executor of the estate and Richard Greene, through his firm, provided Clainos legal counsel. On appeal, Alexander and David challenged the district court's disposition of a motion to dismiss, a special motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Proc. Code 425.16(b)(1), and related attorney's fees awards. The court affirmed the disposition of the motion to strike in part and reversed in part. The court concluded that striking plaintiffs' conversion and unjust enrichment claims against Clainos was erroneous. The court also concluded that striking plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claim against Clainos was erroneous. The court further concluded that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged claims for conversion, copyright infringement, and declaratory relief against the BGA Defendants and that dismissal of those claims was erroneous. In regards to attorney's fees, the court vacated the post-motion-to-strike fee award to Clainos, as well as the post-motion-to-dismiss fee award to the BGA Defendants. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Graham-Sult v. Clainos" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff claimed that prison officials engaged in retaliatory conduct, of which the governmental actors were aware, because of plaintiff's mother's website, which exposed prison corruption and fought for inmates' rights. The district court granted summary judgment to defendant and plaintiff appealed. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff was disqualified from proceeding in forma pauperis. The court held that repeated and knowing violations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)'s "short and plain statement" requirement are strikes as "failures to state a claim" when the opportunity to correct the pleadings has been afforded and there has been no modification within a reasonable time. Plaintiff accrued two strikes for Ninth Circuit dismissals, and three additional strikes for district court dismissals. Therefore, plaintiff has more than met the requirement for a revocation of in forma pauperis status under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C. 1915(g). Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. View "Knapp v. Hogan, et al." on Justia Law

This case concerned a dispute regarding plaintiffs' membership in an Indian tribe. At issue was whether the district court had jurisdiction to enjoin preliminarily the enforcement of a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) order upholding the Band's decision to disenroll descendants of plaintiffs from the San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians and whether such injunctive relief could issue in the Band's absence. The court held that the exercise of jurisdiction was proper, and that the Band was not a required party for the adjudication of the claims underlying the preliminary injunction because they concerned solely the propriety of final agency action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the Band's motions to dismiss the claims on which the injunction rests and its consequent refusal to dissolve the preliminary injunction; remanded to allow the district court to formally clarify its order in compliance with the court's understanding of it; and concluded that the court lacked jurisdiction to review on interlocutory appeal the Band's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' other claims, on which the district court expressly deferred ruling. View "Alto, et al. v. Salazar, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant, a Chinese national, unlawfully obtained two driver's licenses issued by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). At issue was whether defendant's possession of those licenses could be punished under 18 U.S.C. 1546(a). The court concluded that section 1546(a) could not be read to criminalize the mere possession of an unlawfully obtained CNMI driver's license. Because the government presented no evidence that defendant possessed any other document covered by the statute, defendant's section 1546(a) conviction could not stand. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a rational jury could find defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for making a false statement to a federal agent in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2). Accordingly, the court reversed defendant's conviction under section 1546(a) and affirmed his conviction under section 1001(a)(2), remanding for further proceedings. View "United States v. Lin" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of failing to register and/or update a registration, in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 18 U.S.C. 2250(a). On appeal, defendant challenged his sentence of 14 months' imprisonment and lifetime supervised release. Joining its sister circuits, the court held that 18 U.S.C. 3583(h), which authorized an additional term of supervised release following revocation of supervised release, permitted imposition of a lifetime term of supervised release. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Crowder" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of Honduras, petitioned for review of the BIA's dismissal of his motion to reopen. The court concluded that petitioner was correct that the Board's place-of-filing rule was a procedural claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional bar to the Board's authority to consider a motion to reopen. The originating statute, 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7), did nothing to diminish the Board's jurisdiction or authorize the Board to diminish its own jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the Board's order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hernandez v. Holder" on Justia Law