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

David and Bonnie Faulk, residents of Alaska, purchased over one hundred windows from Spenard Builders Supply for their custom-built home and alleged that the windows, manufactured by JELD-WEN, were defective in breach of an oral warranty. They filed a class action in Alaska state court against Spenard Builders Supply, an Alaska corporation, and JELD-WEN, a Delaware corporation, asserting state-law claims. The defendants removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), which allows federal jurisdiction based on minimal diversity in class actions.After removal, the Faulks amended their complaint to remove all class action allegations and sought to remand the case to state court. The United States District Court for the District of Alaska denied their motion to remand, relying on Ninth Circuit precedent that held federal jurisdiction under CAFA is determined at the time of removal and is not affected by post-removal amendments. The district court allowed the amendment to eliminate class allegations but ultimately dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice, finding most claims time-barred and one insufficiently pled.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, which held that federal jurisdiction depends on the operative complaint, including post-removal amendments. The Ninth Circuit concluded that, after the Faulks removed their class action allegations, the sole basis for federal jurisdiction under CAFA was eliminated, and complete diversity was lacking. The court vacated the district court’s order dismissing the complaint and remanded with instructions to remand the case to state court unless another basis for federal jurisdiction is established. View "FAULK V. JELD-WEN, INC." on Justia Law

Bloom Energy, a company specializing in fuel-cell servers, entered into Managed Services Agreements (MSAs), which are sale-leaseback arrangements involving banks and customers. The company initially classified these MSAs as operating leases, based on its assessment that the lease terms were less than 75% of the servers’ estimated useful lives and that the servers were not “integral equipment.” This classification affected how Bloom Energy reported revenue and liabilities in its financial statements. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) was engaged to audit Bloom Energy’s 2016 and 2017 financial statements, which were prepared by Bloom Energy’s management, and PwC issued an audit opinion stating that the financial statements were fairly presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.After Bloom Energy went public in 2018, it later restated its financial statements, reclassifying certain MSAs as capital leases following a review prompted by PwC’s identification of an accounting issue. This restatement led to a significant drop in Bloom Energy’s stock price. Plaintiffs, consisting of shareholders, filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Bloom Energy, its officers, directors, underwriters, and later added PwC as a defendant. They alleged violations of § 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, claiming that PwC was liable for material misstatements in the registration statement due to its audit opinion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal of the claims against PwC. The Ninth Circuit held that under § 11, an independent accountant is not strictly liable for information in a registration statement or financial statements merely because it certified them. PwC’s audit opinion was a statement of subjective judgment, protected as an opinion under Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, and did not contain actionable misstatements or omissions. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the claims against PwC. View "HUNT V. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP" on Justia Law

A corporation owned by a federally recognized Indian tribe, along with several tribal officials, was alleged by the State of California to have violated state cigarette tax laws and regulations. The corporation manufactured and distributed cigarettes in California, including to non-tribal consumers, without collecting or remitting required state excise taxes or payments under the Master Settlement Agreement. California claimed that the corporation and its officials distributed contraband cigarettes not listed on the state’s approved directory and failed to comply with shipping, recordkeeping, and tax collection requirements under the federal Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act). Despite warnings and being placed on a federal non-compliance list, the corporation continued its operations.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California considered the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court found that the corporation, as an arm of the tribe, was shielded by tribal sovereign immunity and dismissed claims against it. However, the court allowed claims for injunctive relief against the individual tribal officials in their official capacities to proceed, holding that the Ex parte Young doctrine permitted such relief under the PACT Act. The court also denied the officials’ claims of qualified immunity for personal capacity claims, reasoning that qualified immunity did not apply to enforcement actions brought by a state under a federal statute.On interlocutory appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Ninth Circuit held that the PACT Act does not preclude Ex parte Young actions for prospective injunctive relief against tribal officials, as the Act does not limit who may be sued or the types of relief available, nor does it contain a sufficiently detailed remedial scheme to displace Ex parte Young. The court also held that qualified immunity does not shield tribal officials from California’s claims for civil penalties and money damages under the PACT Act. View "STATE OF CALIFORNIA V. DEL ROSA" on Justia Law

A 12-year-old boy was killed by police officers during an attempt to rescue him from a neighbor who had already killed the boy’s mother and housekeeper, gravely wounded his sister, and was holding the boy hostage in a vehicle. The officers responded to multiple 911 calls, surrounded the vehicle, and attempted to negotiate with the hostage-taker, who was armed and making threats against the child’s life. After the hostage-taker was shot and killed by an officer, other officers fired additional shots, which resulted in the boy’s death.The boy’s father, siblings, and estate filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against the city, police department, and individual officers. They alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment (excessive force), Fourteenth Amendment (substantive due process), a Monell claim for failure to train, and state law claims. The district court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice, finding that the officers had not seized the boy for Fourth Amendment purposes, had not acted with deliberate indifference or intent to harm for Fourteenth Amendment purposes, and that the Monell claim failed in the absence of a constitutional violation.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the officers did not violate the boy’s Fourth Amendment rights because their actions during the active hostage situation did not constitute a seizure, and even if a violation had occurred, qualified immunity would apply as the right was not clearly established. The court also found no Fourteenth Amendment violation, as the officers’ actions did not shock the conscience or demonstrate deliberate indifference, and qualified immunity would apply. The Monell claim failed due to the absence of an underlying constitutional violation. View "HAWATMEH V. CITY OF HENDERSON" on Justia Law

An armed fugitive fleeing law enforcement entered a print shop owned by the plaintiff, forcibly removed him, and barricaded himself inside. After a thirteen-hour standoff, Los Angeles Police Department SWAT officers used dozens of tear gas canisters to subdue the fugitive, causing significant damage to the shop and its contents. The parties agreed that the officers’ actions were authorized, reasonable, and lawful. The plaintiff alleged that the damages, which exceeded $60,000, were caused exclusively by the police.The plaintiff initially sought compensation from the United States Marshals Service, which denied the claim and referred him to the City of Los Angeles. After the City did not respond to his claims or his attorney’s letter, the plaintiff filed a federal lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The City moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Takings Clause does not require compensation for property destroyed by police acting reasonably in an emergency. The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the City’s initial motion but later granted summary judgment for the City, finding that the destruction was a valid exercise of police power and not a compensable taking.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the government’s destruction of private property, when necessary and reasonable for public safety, is exempt from the Takings Clause. The court relied on historical understanding and longstanding precedent, concluding that such actions fall outside the scope of the Takings Clause. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment. View "PENA V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES" on Justia Law

An Oregon nonprofit organization, whose board members are guided by sincerely held religious beliefs, challenged a state law requiring most employers to provide insurance coverage for abortion and contraceptive services. The organization’s governing documents and public statements reflect a commitment to traditional Judeo-Christian ethics, including opposition to abortion based on religious grounds. Although the law contains exemptions for certain religious employers, the organization does not qualify for any of these exceptions, a point not disputed by the state. The organization sought relief, arguing that being compelled to provide such coverage violates its rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.The United States District Court for the District of Oregon denied the organization’s request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed its complaint. The district court found there was doubt as to whether the organization’s opposition to abortion was genuinely religious in nature. It further concluded that the law was neutral and generally applicable, subject only to rational basis review, which it satisfied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and vacated the denial of a preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit held that the organization’s beliefs are religious and sincerely held, and that the district court erred by not accepting these allegations as true at the motion to dismiss stage. The appellate court remanded the case for the district court to reconsider, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, whether the selective denial of a religious exemption to the organization violates the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit expressed no opinion on the ultimate constitutional question, leaving it for the district court to address in the first instance. View "OREGON RIGHT TO LIFE V. STOLFI" on Justia Law

A group of grocery retailers and public interest organizations challenged federal regulations that established a national uniform disclosure standard for foods containing genetically modified ingredients. Congress had directed the Secretary of Agriculture to create this standard, which was delegated to the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The AMS’s regulations, effective January 1, 2022, required certain foods to disclose if they were “bioengineered” or contained “bioengineered” ingredients, but generally excluded highly refined foods where genetically modified material was undetectable. Plaintiffs argued that this exclusion, the mandated use of the term “bioengineered” instead of more familiar terms like “GMO,” and the allowance of QR code and text-message disclosure options were unlawful or arbitrary under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs only on their challenge to the QR code and text-message disclosure options, remanding those provisions to the AMS without vacating them. The court denied summary judgment on all other claims, which the Ninth Circuit construed as a final judgment granting summary judgment to the AMS and intervenor-defendants on the remaining claims. Plaintiffs appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs had standing and that the AMS committed legal error by generally excluding highly refined foods from the definition of “bioengineered foods.” The court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants on this issue, remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment to the plaintiffs, and directed the district court to determine whether any regulatory provisions should be vacated. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rejection of the claim that the use of “bioengineered” was arbitrary and capricious, finding the agency’s choice reasonable. The court also held that the district court abused its discretion by not vacating the two disclosure-format regulations and directed prospective vacatur after further input from the parties. The judgment was otherwise affirmed. View "NATURAL GROCERS V. ROLLINS" on Justia Law

A same-sex married couple, one a U.S. citizen residing in California and the other a Saudi citizen, spent part of each year living together in Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality is punishable by death. In 2021, after U.S. travel restrictions eased, they booked tickets with a German airline to fly from Saudi Arabia to San Francisco. The airline, which operates extensively in California, required them to confirm their marital status for entry into the U.S. During check-in in Riyadh, a senior airline employee publicly disclosed and questioned their relationship, and copies of their marriage certificate and passports were sent electronically to airline headquarters despite their concerns about Saudi government surveillance. After the trip, the Saudi government updated one plaintiff’s official status to “married,” and he feared returning to Saudi Arabia due to potential severe penalties. The couple alleged that the airline’s actions led to significant personal, financial, and health consequences.The couple filed suit in California state court against the airline and its U.S. subsidiary, alleging breach of contract and several torts. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting diversity and federal question jurisdiction. The district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit initially remanded for clarification of the subsidiary’s citizenship, after which the district court allowed amendment of the removal notice to reflect the correct citizenship.Upon renewed review, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court had both specific personal jurisdiction over the defendants and subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity. The court found that the airline purposefully availed itself of California’s market, the claims arose from the airline’s California-related activities, and exercising jurisdiction was reasonable. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. View "DOE V. DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT" on Justia Law

North Mountain Foothills Apartments (NMFA), a company managing a large apartment complex in Phoenix, Arizona, hired Jasper Press as a maintenance technician during a period of increased workload due to a heatwave. Press discussed his compensation and the poor conditions at the complex with several coworkers. Management became aware that other employees knew about Press’s pay and housing benefits, leading to a meeting where Press was reprimanded for these discussions and told not to talk about pest issues with residents. The day after this meeting, Press was terminated, allegedly for failing to complete work orders. Press filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging unfair labor practices.An administrative law judge held an evidentiary hearing and found that NMFA violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by interrogating Press about his wage discussions, issuing overly broad directives restricting such discussions, threatening reprisals, and discharging Press for engaging in protected activities. The NLRB adopted these findings and ordered remedies including reinstatement and back pay for Press. NMFA appealed, raising for the first time constitutional challenges to the NLRB’s structure and process, and also contested the Board’s factual findings.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to consider NMFA’s unexhausted constitutional claims because such structural challenges are not suited to agency resolution. The court rejected NMFA’s Article II removal protection challenge for lack of demonstrated harm, found no Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in NLRB proceedings, and held that the combination of investigatory and adjudicatory functions within the NLRB does not violate due process. On the merits, the court found substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s finding that Press was discharged for protected activity and granted enforcement of the NLRB’s order. View "NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. NORTH MOUNTAIN FOOTHILLS APARTMENTS, LLC" on Justia Law

Ryan VanDyke was subject to a civil protection order and a no-contact order in Idaho after persistently harassing a woman, violating both probation conditions for a prior telephone-harassment conviction and earlier court-ordered protections. In October 2022, after being charged with felony stalking for continued unwanted contact and harassment, a state court issued a no-contact order that explicitly prohibited VanDyke from using, attempting to use, or threatening physical force against the victim. In May 2023, while still under these orders, VanDyke entered a courthouse carrying a loaded revolver.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho dismissed the federal indictment against VanDyke, which charged him with illegal firearm possession under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii). The district court found that, as applied to VanDyke, this statute did not fit within the historical tradition of firearm regulation required by the Second Amendment, and therefore held the statute unconstitutional in this context.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). The Ninth Circuit held that § 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) is constitutional as applied to VanDyke. The court reasoned that there is a historical tradition of both individualized and categorical disarmament of persons deemed dangerous, including those subject to judicial findings of threat or facing serious criminal charges. The court found that the procedures and justifications for VanDyke’s disarmament were analogous to those recognized in Rahimi and related precedent. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the indictment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "USA V. VANDYKE" on Justia Law