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

Plaintiff, insured under two-long term disability plans, sued the Plans when Unum decided to deduct his Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefit as deductible income under each plan, resulting in what he termed a "double offset." Because the court held that Unum's decision was not an abuse of discretion, that the plain language of the Plans permitted the deduction of the SSDI benefit from each plan, and that plaintiff was not entitled to equitable estoppel, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Plans. View "Renfro v. The Funky Door Long Term Disability Plan, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit in federal court seeking damages for the 31 months during which they were barred from improving their shoreline property by the moratorium imposed by local officials on new projects. Plaintiffs asserted that the moratorium violated their substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, and sought damages against the city under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court concluded that the moratorium ordinances were validly enacted, nonarbitrary, and manifestly related to the city's legitimate municipal interests. Accordingly, the court held that the city did not violate plaintiffs' constitutional rights. View "Samson, et al. v. City of Bainbridge Island" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas petition challenging his jury conviction for one count of committing a forcible lewd act upon a child under 14 years of age; eight counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 years of age; and first-degree burglary. Petitioner argued that the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to strike three African-American prospective jurors violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court credited the prosecutor's justifications, and the California Court of Appeal found that substantial evidence supported the determination. Both the district court's and the court's own review of the record failed to show purposeful discrimination on the part of the prosecutor. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and held that petitioner did not suffer any violation of his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. View "Briggs v. Grounds" on Justia Law

The Lands Commission appealed the district court's final judgment in this eminent domain case, wherein the United States took a fee simple interest in the property at issue on behalf of the Navy, which has continuously leased this parcel since 1949. In condemning the property, the United States sought to extinguish California's public trust rights. The court concluded that, having paid just compensation, the United States was entitled to the interest it sought in its complaint in condemnation; full fee simple, free of California's public trust. The court concluded that neither the equal-footing doctrine nor the public trust doctrine prevented the federal government from taking that interest in the land unencumbered.

Plaintiff appealed an order of the district court affirming the Commissioner's final decision denying her disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act (SSA), 42 U.S.C. 401-434. At issue, among other things, was whether the district court should have considered evidence plaintiff did not submit to the ALJ but submitted for the first time to the Appeals Council, which accepted and considered the new evidence but declined to review the ALJ's decision. The court held that when a claimant submitted evidence for the first time to the Appeals Council, which considering that evidence in denying review of the ALJ's decision, the new evidence was part of the administrative record, which the district court must consider in determining whether the Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence. Considering the record as a whole, the court concluded that the Commissioner's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for an immediate award of benefits.

This case concerned the constitutionality of certain California statutes and regulations that prohibit licensed opticians from offering prescription eyewear at the same location in which eye examinations were provided and from advertising that eyewear and eye examinations were available in the same location. Plaintiffs maintained that these statutes and regulations violated the dormant Commerce Clause. The court held that there was no material issue of fact regarding whether the challenged laws placed a significant burden on interstate commerce and therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the State.

Plaintiffs filed suit in district court under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(2). Plaintiffs subsequently appealed from the district court's dismissal without prejudice of their first amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court, citing Hertz Corp. v. Friend, dismissed the complaint because plaintiffs failed to provide factual support for their allegations of diversity. But Hertz did not impose a heightened pleading standard and, in two orders issued before its order of dismissal, the district court requested that plaintiffs provide further allegations of the corporate parties' principal place of business, not further proof. The district court did not abuse its discretion by requesting proof of the parties' principal places of business, but the court found that the district court's order was inconsistent. Accordingly, the court vacated the order and dismissed the first amended complaint, and remanded.

This case arose when plaintiff alleged that defendant owed it mineral royalty payments pursuant to an area-of-interest provision contained in a 1979 agreement. The court certified two questions to the Nevada Supreme Court: (1) Under Nevada law, does the Rule Against Perpetuities apply to an area-of-interest provision in a commercial agreement? and (2) If the Rule Against Perpetuities did apply, is reformation available under Nevada Revised Statute 111.1039(2)? All further proceedings in the case were stayed pending receipt of the answer from the Nevada Supreme Court.

Defendant appealed his conviction for social security fraud pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(5). The court held that the district court committed no reversible error in the formulation of jury instructions; the district court acted within its discretion when it admitted computer-generated records into evidence; the prosecutor's comments did not warrant reversal of defendant's conviction; the district court committed no error when it denied defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal; and 42 U.S.C. 408(a)(5) was not unconstitutionally vague. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint in federal district court against the United States government, alleging causes of action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2671-2680. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that agents from the DEA committed the torts of assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress when they executed a search warrant at plaintiffs' mobile home. The court agreed with the district court that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether DEA Agents' use of force against the adult members of plaintiffs' family was reasonable. The court, however, disagreed with the district court's conclusion that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether DEA Agents used reasonable force against the 11-year-old and 14-year-old plaintiffs. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.