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

USAP brought suit against Parts Geek and various individuals alleging, among other things, copyright infringement in certain e-commerce software. The district court granted summary judgment against USAP on its claim of copyright infringement because it concluded that USAP did not own the allegedly infringed copyright. Because there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether USAP owned a copyright in all or part of the software at issue, the court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. v. Parts Geek, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Philippine citizen, petitioned for review of a BIA decision declaring him ineligible for relief under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 212(c), on the ground that he had served a "term of imprisonment" of over five years for conviction of an aggravated felony. Petitioner contended that the BIA improperly included in his "term of imprisonment" the entire period that he spent in psychiatric pre-trial civil confinement pending a determination of his competence to stand trial. Because the court could not confidently approximate how much time petitioner would have actually served in prison had he never spent time in pre-trial psychiatric confinement, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for a determination of the amount of constructive good time credit to which he was entitled for the period of his civil confinement. View "Corpuz v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

In this putative class action, plaintiff alleged that HSBC and Best Buy (collectively, defendants) defrauded California customers by offering credit cards without adequately disclosing that cardholders would be subject to an annual fee. At issue was whether the district court erred when it considered extrinsic evidence in deciding defendants' motion to dismiss, and whether dismissal was proper under Rule 12(b)(6). The court held that the district court properly incorporated the disclosure documents at issue and the court affirmed its order dismissing plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. View "Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., et al." on Justia Law

Debtors proposed a three-year Chapter 13 plan of reorganization. The Trustee objected and argued that a five-year plan was required. At issue was whether, under 11 U.S.C. 1325(b), a debtor with no "projected disposable income" could confirm a plan that was shorter in duration than the "applicable commitment period" found in section 1325(b). The court concluded that the Trustee raised legitimate policy considerations as to why a mandated plan length might be desirable even though debtors have no projected disposable income. However, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court erred in disregarding the controlling precedent in Maney v. Kagenveama where Ninth Circuit precedent plainly allowed debtors to confirm a shorter plan under the facts of this case. View "Flores, et al. v. Danielson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the 24-month prison sentence imposed following his conviction for illegal reentry. The court adhered to its precedent that required it to decline to review whether the district court procedurally erred by failing to grant defendant a departure or by failing to consider departures before applying the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors. Accordingly, the court declined defendant's invitation to review the district court's denial of a departure and instead, reviewed the district court's exercise of discretion only for substantive reasonableness. Because the record made clear that the sentencing judge considered the relevant evidence and argument, defendant's claims of procedural error failed. The court concluded that the district court's within-Guidelines sentence was reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Vasquez-Cruz" on Justia Law

Marilyn Monroe LLC and its licensee sued Milton Green in the federal district court, claiming ownership of Marilyn Monroe's right of publicity and alleging that Milton Greene was violating Marilyn Monroe LLC's rights by using Monroe's image and likeness for unauthorized commercial purposes, including the advertising and sale of photographs of Monroe. At issue in this case was whether appellants inherited a right of publicity, which was created and deemed posthumous by the states of California and Indiana decades after her death, through a residual clause in her Last Will and Testament. The court concluded that because Monroe's executors consistently represented during the probate proceedings and elsewhere that she was domiciled in New York at her death to avoid payment of California estate taxes, among other things, appellants were judicially estopped from asserting California's posthumous right of publicity. View "Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. v. Marilyn Monroe LLC, et al." on Justia Law

William Jefferson & Co., Inc. (William Jefferson) lost a state administrative appeal in which William Jefferson challenged the Orange County Tax Assessor's valuation of a parcel of real property. William Jefferson then filed a suit in federal district court, alleging that its procedural due process rights were violated in the course of the administrative appeal hearing. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that the state administrative appeal did not deny William Jefferson procedural due process. In a separate memorandum disposition filed concurrently with this opinion, the court affirmed the lower court's grant of the agency's motion for a protective order and its denial of class certification. View "William Jefferson & Co., Inc. v. Board of Assessment and Appeal, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an action for copyright infringement, as well as unjust enrichment and accounting, against defendants. According to plaintiff, defendants infringed her purported interest in a book and two screenplays that together allegedly formed the basis for the 1980 motion picture "Raging Bull." The court held that plaintiff's copyright infringement claim was barred by laches and therefore did not reach the merit of the claim itself. The court also held that, because laches was an equitable defense, the court agreed with the district court that laches also barred plaintiff's unjust enrichment and accounting claims. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's sanctions and attorney's fees motions. View "Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. During the selection of the jury that convicted and sentenced petitioner, the prosecution used its preemptory challenges to strike all of the black and Hispanic jurors available for challenge. The trial judge concluded that petitioner had established a prima facie case of racial discrimination under Batson v. Kentucky, but permitted the prosecution to give its justifications for the challenges of these jurors in an in camera hearing from which petitioner and his counsel were excluded. The trial judge then accepted the prosecution's justifications for its strikes without disclosing them to the defense or permitting it to respond. The court held that this procedure violated the Constitution and, together with the state's later loss of a large portion of the record, adversely affected petitioner's substantial rights. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's denial of the petition and remanded with instructions to grant the writ. View "Ayala v. Wong" on Justia Law

These proceedings involved a complex, rarely litigated federal statute, the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), 7 U.S.C. 499a et seq., designed in part to assure that farmers were paid for their produce. In 2009, a Judicial Officer (JO) of the USDA determined that petitioners had violated the PACA by failing to make prompt payment for produce purchases. The court held that the JO's determination that the Subsidiaries purchased produce and failed to make prompt payment for it as required by section 499b(4) was supported by substantial evidence; the JO's conclusion that Petitioners Duncan and Bennett were responsibly connected to Consolidation and Farms under section 499a(b)(9) was also supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error; and therefore, the petitions for review were rejected. View "Perfectly Fresh Farms, Inc., et al. v. USDA; Bennett v. USDA" on Justia Law