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

Plaintiff and his children (plaintiffs) brought a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit against defendants for damages resulting from plaintiff's unlawful arrest. Plaintiff was arrested as he stood outside a fair selling promotional tickets for $5 that he had received for free from a radio station. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on the grounds of qualified immunity. The court agreed with the district court that there was no probable cause to arrest plaintiff and his right to be free from unlawful arrest was violated. The court held, however, that the district court's grant of summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity for an unlawful arrest was reversed where all reasonably competent officers would have agreed that plaintiff was not committing a crime because there was no scalping law in Nevada; it was simply not a crime to sell tickets to a fair; plaintiff's t-shirt, which had the logo of the radio station, did not suggest fraud; and the ticket buyers were not duped by the sale. The court also held that plaintiffs' substantive due process right to family integrity was not violated where the facts of the case did not come close to rising to the level of conduct that shocked the conscience. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's claim on this issue.

Appellants appealed the district court's denial of certification of their putative class action in Mancini v. Ticketmaster; Stearns v. Ticketmaster, and Johnson v. Ticketmaster. Appellants' actions were directed against a number of entities that were said to have participated in a deceptive internet scheme, which induced numerous individuals to unwittingly sign up for a fee-based rewards program where amounts were charged to their credit cards or directly deducted from their bank accounts. The court held that Rule 23 did not give the district court broad discretion over certification of class actions and the district court erred when it based its exercise of that discretion on what turned out to be an inaccurate reading of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200-17210. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's denial of the motions for class certification of the UCL claims in Mancini and affirmed its determination that Mancini and Sanders were not proper representatives. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code 1750-1784, claim in Stearns; affirmed the district court's refusal to certify a class regarding the CLRA injunctive relief claims in Mancini; reversed the district court's dismissal of the Johnson action regarding the CLRA claim; and affirmed its refusal to certify a class regarding the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. 1693-1693r, claim in Mancini.

Defendant appealed his conviction for failing to register as a sex offender and challenged the legality of the Attorney General's interim regulation for failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. In United States v. Valverde, the court held that for persons such as defendant, who were convicted of sex offenses prior to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act's (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16911, 16913, enactment, SORNA's registration requirements did not become effective until August 1, 2008, because the Attorney General's interim regulation did not comply with the APA. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded this case for dismissal of the indictment.

Defendant appealed his misdemeanor convictions, after retrial, of three counts of violating 18 U.S.C. 1382. Defendant's charges arose from his protest activities on Ocean Avenue, which was a public road that crossed the Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB). On appeal, defendant argued that his retrial violated the proscription against double jeopardy, that there was insufficient evidence to convict, and that his conviction violated his First Amendment rights. The court found that in all three incidents, defendant was within the physical limits of the public road easement corresponding to Ocean Avenue, a fact which the government did not challenge. The court held that because the government did not have an exclusive right of possession over Ocean Avenue, defendant's presence and protest activities could not constitute violations of section 1382 under the court's precedent.

A former public high school student alleged that his history teacher violated his rights under the Establishment Clause by making comments during class that were hostile to religion in general, and to Christianity in particular. At issue was whether the teacher was entitled to qualified immunity. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the teacher was entitled to qualified immunity. The court also held that because it was readily apparent that the law was not clearly established at the time of the events in question, and because the court could resolve the appeal on that basis alone, the court declined to pass upon the constitutionality of the teacher's challenged statements.

Appellant was the target of a grand jury investigation seeking to determine whether he used secret Swiss bank accounts to evade paying federal taxes. The district court granted a motion to compel appellant's compliance with a grand jury subpoena dueces tecum demanding that he produce certain records related to his foreign bank accounts. The court declined to condition its order compelling production upon a grant of limited immunity, and pursuant to the recalcitrant witness statute, 28 U.S.C. 1826, held appellant in contempt for refusing to comply. The court held that because the records sought through the subpoena fell under the Required Records Doctrine, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was inapplicable, and appellant could not invoke it to resist compliance with the subpoena's command. The court also held that because appellant's Fifth Amendment privilege was not implicated, it need not address appellant's request for immunity. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

This case stemmed from a challenge by environmental groups to a proposed incremental drawdown of water from Lake Roosevelt in eastern Washington. At issue was whether the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) took a "hard look" and genuinely scrutinized the environmental consequence of its proposed action. The court held that, under its precedents and the circumstances presented, Reclamation's actions did not violate the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. The court also held that its review revealed no other deficiencies in the substance of the Environmental Assessment (EA), and although Reclamation took several steps toward implementing the drawdown project before drafting the EA, it scrupulously adhered to NEPA's timing requirements. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of a decision of the BIA ordering him removed to his native country. The BIA affirmed the IJ's ruling that petitioner was ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and withholding under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) because he had been "convicted of a particularly serious crime," driving under the influence (DUI). The BIA also ruled that petitioner was ineligible for deferral of removal under the CAT because he failed to prove a likelihood of future torture. The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination that an alien had been convicted of a "particularly serious crime." The court also held that driving under the influence was not statutorily defined as an aggravated felony did not preclude the BIA from determining that it could be a particularly serious crime. The court further held that the BIA, as the Attorney General's delegate, was permitted in this case to determine whether petitioner's DUI offenses were particularly serious for purposes of asylum eligibility. The court held, however, that the BIA's explanation for its decision was so ambiguous that the court could not conduct meaningful judicial review and therefore, remanded to the BIA for a clear explanation.

This appeal stemmed from the district court's summary judgment dismissing Fleischer Studios, Inc.'s (Fleischer) copyright and trademark infringement action where the district court ruled that Fleischer held neither a valid copyright nor a valid trademark in the Betty Boop cartoon character and therefore lacked standing to sue. The court held that because the chain of title was broken, the district court properly dismissed Fleischer's copyright infringement claim. The court vacated and remanded to the district court for further proceedings on Fleischer's trademark infringmenet claims regarding the Betty Boop word mark because it was unable to ascertain a legal basis for the district court's reasoning on the current record.

Plaintiffs filed 26 putative class actions against defendants, alleging that defendants knowingly failed to disclose the potential risk of noise-induced hearing loss associated with extended use of their wireless Bluetooth headsets at high volumes, in violation of state consumer fraud protection and unfair business practice laws. The subsequent settlement agreement provided the class $100,000 in cy pres awards and zero dollars for economic injury, while setting aside up to $800,000 for class counsel and $12,000 for the class representatives. William Brennan and other class members (Objectors) challenged the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement and appealed both the approval and fee orders, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in failing to consider whether the gross disproportion between the class award and the negotiated fee award was reasonable. The court agreed that the disparity between the value of the class recovery and class counsel's compensation raised at least an inference of unfairness, and that the current record did not adequately dispel the possibility that class counsel bargained away a benefit to the class in exchange for their own interests. Therefore, the court vacated both orders and remanded so that the district court could conduct a more searching inquiry into the fairness of the negotiated distribution of funds, as well as consider the substantive reasonableness of the attorneys' fee request in light of the degree of success attained.