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

Susan Cox, a resident of Albion, Washington, died from an overdose of medications prescribed by her primary care physician, Dr. Patricia Marciano. Dr. Marciano, along with Gritman Medical Center, both based in Idaho near the Washington border, had treated Susan for several years. Although Susan lived in Washington, her medical treatment occurred in Idaho. At Susan’s request, her prescriptions were regularly transmitted to pharmacies in Washington. Susan’s husband, Mark Cox, and her estate brought a wrongful death and survivor action in the Eastern District of Washington, alleging that Susan’s death resulted from negligent over-prescription of pharmaceuticals.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington denied the plaintiffs’ request for jurisdictional discovery regarding general personal jurisdiction over Gritman and dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court found that Washington’s long-arm statute did not confer jurisdiction and that exercising specific jurisdiction would violate due process, as the defendants had not purposefully availed themselves of the Washington forum. The district court did not reach the question of venue.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The court of appeals held that the district court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over the Idaho defendants was proper under Washington’s long-arm statute and consistent with the Due Process Clause because the defendants maintained ongoing, deliberate relationships with Washington residents and regularly sent prescriptions to Washington pharmacies in compliance with state law. The court also held that venue was proper in the Eastern District of Washington since a substantial part of the events underlying the claims occurred there. The case was remanded for further proceedings, with dismissal affirmed only for one defendant whom the plaintiffs conceded was properly dismissed. View "COX V. GRITMAN MEDICAL CENTER" on Justia Law

Paul Engstrom pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance and money laundering conspiracy, admitting to involvement in distributing 500 grams or more of cocaine—an offense carrying a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. In his plea agreement, Engstrom acknowledged he was ineligible for safety valve relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) and agreed not to seek such relief. At sentencing in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, the court imposed a 70-month sentence, below the guideline range but above the statutory minimum, citing Engstrom’s difficult pretrial detention and his coconspirators’ similar sentences.Following sentencing, the district court held a resentencing hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, aiming to correct a perceived technical error in considering the mandatory minimum after granting Engstrom safety valve relief. The court concluded that Engstrom was eligible for safety valve relief, finding that his statements in open court were sufficient, and imposed a 46-month sentence, below the statutory minimum. The government moved for reconsideration, arguing Engstrom had not satisfied the statutory debrief requirement and was ineligible under the Supreme Court’s decision in Pulsifer v. United States, issued during the appeal, which interpreted § 3553(f)(1) to preclude safety valve relief if any one of three criminal history criteria applied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s resentencing decision for plain error and found no error in holding the Rule 35 hearing. However, the Ninth Circuit held that Engstrom was not eligible for safety valve relief because he did not provide a complete debrief to the government as required by § 3553(f)(5), and, under Pulsifer, his prior three-point conviction categorically precluded relief. The court reversed the district court, vacated Engstrom’s sentence, and remanded for resentencing without safety valve relief. View "USA V. ENGSTROM" on Justia Law

Funko, Inc., a company specializing in pop culture collectibles, experienced a significant decline in its share price after writing off millions of dollars in unsellable inventory. Shareholders who purchased Funko stock during the relevant period alleged that Funko and its key officers misled investors about the progress of relocating to a new warehouse, the quality and management of inventory, the status of its information technology upgrades, and its distribution capabilities. The plaintiffs claimed that these misrepresentations led them to buy stock at artificially inflated prices. The period in question was marked by Funko's transition to a larger distribution center and a planned upgrade of its enterprise resource planning software, both of which encountered serious operational difficulties that impacted inventory management and order fulfillment.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the complaint, holding that the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege falsity and scienter—a necessary intent to mislead investors or recklessness to the risk of doing so. The district court found that most of the challenged statements were either not objectively false, constituted non-actionable puffery, or were protected as forward-looking statements under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act’s safe harbor.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal in part and reversed in part. The Ninth Circuit held that while Funko’s affirmative statements about the distribution center operations, inventory quality, and distribution capabilities were not demonstrably false or actionable, certain risk disclosures in Funko’s SEC filings regarding inventory management and its use of existing information technology systems were misleading. The court found that these risk disclosures implied the risks were merely hypothetical when, in fact, they had already materialized. The court also found sufficient allegations of scienter, concluding that senior officers likely knew their statements were misleading. The court reversed the dismissal of claims related to those disclosures and remanded for further proceedings. View "Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis v. Funko, Inc." on Justia Law

A California state prisoner, Maurice Lydell Harris, is a practicing Nichiren Buddhist who believes his faith requires him to eat “clean” food, including meat as close to its natural state as possible. Because the prison system did not offer a diet specifically aligned with his religious practice, Harris enrolled in the halal meat program (RMAP), based on advice from a prison chaplain that it most closely matched his requirements. Prison regulations require RMAP participants to refrain from buying non-halal foods from the commissary, but Harris purchased such items, including ramen and processed meats, citing health needs and cultural practices, which led to multiple violations and ultimately his removal from the program.Harris filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that his removal from RMAP violated his rights under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). He sought preliminary injunctive relief to continue receiving the RMAP diet while supplementing with non-halal foods. The district court denied Harris’s requests twice, concluding that the RMAP diet was not required by Harris’s religion and that expulsion would not affect his ability to observe his faith.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the district court erred by evaluating the centrality of the halal diet to Harris’s beliefs, rather than whether Harris sincerely believed the diet best suited his religious needs. The Ninth Circuit held that Harris could demonstrate a substantial burden on his religious exercise and that, if so, the government must show its regulation is the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling interest. The court vacated the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings to reassess whether Harris’s religious exercise was substantially burdened. View "Harris v. Muhammad" on Justia Law

Several individuals and two retailers challenged California’s statutory scheme regulating switchblade knives, arguing that these laws violate the Second Amendment. The relevant regulations define switchblades as certain knives with blades of at least two inches that open automatically, and prohibit, among other conduct, carrying such knives concealed in public. The plaintiffs brought a facial constitutional challenge, asserting a right to keep and bear switchblades under the Second Amendment.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, the judge granted summary judgment in favor of the state. The district court concluded that switchblades are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are not commonly used for self-defense and are considered dangerous and unusual. Although this finding was deemed dispositive, the district court also found that California failed to show its regulations were consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of arms regulation, but nonetheless upheld the law based on the initial analysis.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the summary judgment de novo. Applying the framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Ninth Circuit assumed, without deciding, that the Second Amendment’s text covered the plaintiffs’ conduct. At the historical inquiry step, the court held that switchblades are relevantly similar to Bowie knives and other weapons historically regulated due to their association with violence and crime, and that California’s prohibition on concealed carry of switchblades is analogous to longstanding restrictions on the concealed carry of such weapons. The Ninth Circuit therefore affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that plaintiffs’ facial challenge failed because they could not show that the switchblade regulations are unconstitutional in all their applications. View "Knife Rights, Inc. v. Bonta" on Justia Law

A fire broke out on the passenger dive boat M.V. Conception during a scuba diving excursion in September 2019, resulting in the deaths of thirty-four people who were trapped below deck. The Coast Guard had inspected the vessel multiple times before the incident and had found it fit for service, not identifying any safety hazards related to electrical wiring, plastic trash cans, or plastic chairs. Personal representatives of the deceased and one injured survivor filed suit against the United States, alleging that the Coast Guard’s negligent inspection and failure to identify these hazards caused the tragedy.The United States District Court for the Central District of California was the first to review the case. The government moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the discretionary function exception to the Suits in Admiralty Act (SIAA) applied. The district court agreed, finding that the relevant statutes and regulations gave Coast Guard inspectors discretion in how to conduct vessel inspections and in determining what constituted hazardous conditions. As a result, plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the discretionary function exception, and the suit was dismissed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that its prior precedent, Earles v. United States, which applies the discretionary function exception from the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) to the SIAA, remained binding and had not been overruled by the Supreme Court’s decision in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority. The court further found that no specific statute, regulation, or policy required the Coast Guard to identify the hazards alleged by plaintiffs, and that the inspection process involved discretionary, policy-based decisions. Accordingly, the discretionary function exception barred the suit, and dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was proper. View "Fiedler v. United States" on Justia Law

After Volkswagen AG became the subject of a criminal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for its use of defeat device software to evade emissions standards—a scandal widely known as “Dieselgate”—the company agreed to a plea deal with the DOJ. As part of the investigation, Volkswagen, through its law firm Jones Day, produced approximately six million documents to federal prosecutors in response to a grand jury subpoena. Lawrence Kalbers, a university professor, subsequently filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking all documents Volkswagen provided to the DOJ during the investigation, specifically referencing materials described in Volkswagen’s 2017 Annual Report.The DOJ denied the FOIA request, citing exemptions for law enforcement records and information protected by statute, including Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which safeguards grand jury materials. Kalbers challenged this denial in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The district court ordered the DOJ to produce all responsive documents and a Vaughn index, later appointing a special master due to the volume of records. The special master recommended disclosure, reasoning the documents did not clearly reveal grand jury deliberations. The district court overruled DOJ and Volkswagen’s objections and ordered disclosure, prompting both parties to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. It held that nearly all the requested documents are exempt from FOIA disclosure under Exemption 3 because they were obtained solely via a grand jury subpoena and their release would reveal matters occurring before the grand jury, thus compromising grand jury secrecy protected by Rule 6(e). The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order requiring disclosure of these documents, but vacated and remanded as to four documents not marked as grand jury materials, instructing further review to determine their status. View "Kalbers v. Department of Justice" on Justia Law

Two individuals active in a right-wing political organization alleged that government officials and entities in Portland, Oregon, conspired to arrest and prosecute them without probable cause in order to suppress their political speech. The plaintiffs claimed that city and county officials, various prosecutors, and a police detective orchestrated the investigation and charges after a confrontation at a bar, focusing their efforts on the plaintiffs while allegedly ignoring violent acts by left-wing activists. The plaintiffs were indicted and arrested before a planned protest, but ultimately acquitted at trial. They then sued, asserting violations of federal civil rights statutes and state tort law, including claims of conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and selective enforcement.After the plaintiffs’ acquittal, they filed their action in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that it was a “shotgun pleading” that failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because it lumped together claims and factual allegations without specifying which defendants were responsible for which acts. The court also ruled, in the alternative, that several defendants were immune from suit: the Multnomah County District Attorney’s Office (“MCDA”) and prosecutors in their official capacities under the Eleventh Amendment; the prosecutors in their individual capacities under absolute immunity; and the police detective for his grand jury testimony.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that the complaint was properly dismissed as a shotgun pleading, but that plaintiffs must be allowed to amend. The court affirmed dismissal with prejudice of all claims against MCDA and prosecutors in their official capacities on sovereign immunity grounds, and against the prosecutors in their individual capacities to the extent their actions were prosecutorial. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against a deputy prosecutor for allegedly filing false affidavits, holding that such conduct is not protected by absolute immunity and is not shielded by qualified immunity if false statements were knowingly made to obtain a warrant. The court also reversed dismissal of certain state-law claims against Multnomah County and remanded for further proceedings, allowing plaintiffs to replead those claims not based on the acts of the immune parties. It affirmed immunity for the detective regarding his grand jury testimony. The disposition was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions to permit amendment of the complaint. View "Gibson v. City of Portland" on Justia Law

An association of independent private schools and several of its members sought to prevent the enforcement of an Idaho law, known as the Children’s School and Library Protection Act. This law prohibits schools and public libraries from making certain “harmful” content available to minors, newly imposing civil liability on these institutions. The statute defines “harmful to minors” using an expansive framework, and introduces a private right of action, allowing minors, parents, or guardians to sue for violations. The plaintiffs challenged the statute on First Amendment grounds, arguing the law exceeded the limits of federal obscenity law as set out in Miller v. California.After the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, the district court dismissed some plaintiffs for lack of standing but allowed the private school plaintiffs’ First and Fourteenth Amendment claims to proceed. The district court ultimately denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, holding the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on their facial constitutional challenges to the statute.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction. The Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on their claim that the statute’s “context clause” was unconstitutionally overbroad. This clause requires evaluation of a work’s serious value for minors “in context in which it is used,” which the court found threatens to regulate a substantial amount of protected speech and is not readily susceptible to a constitutional narrowing construction. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of preliminary injunction, holding that the context clause is facially overbroad, and remanded for consideration of the appropriate scope of limited injunctive relief. View "Northwest Association of Independent Schools v. Labrador" on Justia Law

A Nevada state prisoner claimed that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, staff at High Desert State Prison denied him outdoor exercise, even while requiring him and other inmates in his unit to work together in a prison industry warehouse. He alleged that inmates in other units were permitted outdoor yard time, and that the denial of exercise caused him physical and psychological harm. The plaintiff, housed in a protective segregation unit, asserted that these actions violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as similar state constitutional provisions.After filing grievances that were denied at each level by prison officials, the inmate brought a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against the warden and other prison staff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court screened the complaint and allowed certain claims, including those regarding denial of outdoor exercise and equal protection, to proceed against the warden. On summary judgment, the district court denied qualified immunity to the warden for both the Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims, prompting the warden to appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the appeal. The court held that the district court correctly denied qualified immunity on the Eighth Amendment claim, finding that the right to outdoor exercise was clearly established and that there were triable issues as to whether the warden’s actions constituted deliberate indifference. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity on the Fourteenth Amendment claim, concluding that the plaintiff did not provide evidence that ruled out all rational justifications for the difference in yard time between his unit and others. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cardenas-Ornelas v. Johnson" on Justia Law