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

Fox filed suit against Dish Network for copyright infringement and breach of contract, seeking a preliminary injunction. At issue were two Dish products: (1) "PrimeTime Anytime," which allowed a cable subscriber to set a single timer to record any and all primetime programming on four major networks; and (2) "AutoHop," which allowed users to automatically skip commercials. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Fox did not establish a likelihood of success on its direct infringement claim. In this case, Dish's PrimeTime Anytime program created the copied program only in response to the user's command and the district court did not err in concluding that the user, not Dish, made the copy. Operating a system used to make copies at the user's command did not mean that the system operator, rather than the user, caused copies to be made. Although Fox established a prima facie case of direct infringement by Dish customers, Dish met its burden of demonstrating that it was likely to succeed on its affirmative defense that its customers' copying was a "fair use." Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Fox was unlikely to succeed on its claim of secondary infringement. Applying a very deferential standard of review, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction based on alleged contract breaches. Finally, even if Fox was likely to succeed on its claims that Dish directly infringed Fox's copyrights and breached the no-copying clause of the contract at issue by making "quality assurance" copies, the court agreed with the district court that Fox did not demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm resulting from these copies. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Network" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that her employer discriminated against her based upon her sex. While pursuing the discrimination action, plaintiff filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, failing to list the bankruptcy action in her bankruptcy schedules. The employer subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment in the discrimination action on the ground that judicial estoppel prohibited plaintiff from proceeding. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. However, the court vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in determining whether plaintiff's bankruptcy omission was "mistaken" or "inadvertent." View "Quin v. County of Kauai Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a 37-year-old gay native and citizen of the Philippines, petitioned for review of the BIA's order vacating an IJ's grant of withholding of removal and protection under the CAT. The court concluded that the BIA failed to apply the clear standard of review to the IJ's factual findings, and also abused its discretion by ignoring factual findings of the IJ. The court granted the petition for review as to the application for withholding of removal where no reasonable factfinder could conclude that the harm petitioner suffered on account of his sexual orientation did not rise to the level of persecution in light of the cumulative effect of multiple instances of physical harm and victimization. The court, however, denied the petition for review of the BIA's denial of CAT relief where it was unclear that petitioner's beatings and economic deprivation rose to the level of torture. View "Vitug v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged the NMFS's limitations on commercial fishing in certain areas of the Pacific Ocean off Alaska. The agency limited commercial fishing in the areas where the western Distinct Population Segment of the Steller sea lions (wDPS) were experiencing population declines and showing signs of nutritional stress. The court held that the use of sub-regions, rather than in the entire population of the endangered species, did not violate the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531. Further, the agency utilized appropriate standards to find that continuing previous fishing levels in those sub-regions would adversely modify the critical habitat and jeopardize the continued existence of the entire population. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment rejecting plaintiffs' claims. View "State of Alaska v. Lubchenco" on Justia Law

After the court reversed and remanded for an award of social security disability benefits to plaintiff, plaintiff moved for an award of attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412(d). The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in denying the fees where the government's underlying action was not substantially justified in this case. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's denial of plaintiff's motion and remanded for an award of fees and costs. View "Meier v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of Senegal, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner mistakenly filed an N-400 citizenship application instead of filing an I-589 asylum application. After the N-400 application was denied, he filed the I-589 application. The IJ found that petitioner was not credible because he did not supply the same level of detail about persecution when he filled out his mistakenly filed N-400 citizenship application. The court held that substantial evidence did not support the BIA's adverse credibility finding and that the BIA erred when it adopted the IJ's flawed reasoning and when it found that petitioner was not credible on the ground that petitioner's citizenship and asylum applications were inconsistent. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. View "Bassene v. Holder" on Justia Law

This appeal involved litigation over how much water from the Truckee and Carson Rivers should be diverted to irrigation and how much should flow into Pyramid Lake for the benefit of the Tribe. At issue was the court's ruling in United States v. Bell, which concerned the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District (TCID). The court concluded that it's understanding of the scope of the gauge error claim - the margin of error with respect to the gauges that measured the flow of the diversions - in Bell was mistaken and the court should have ordered recalculation of the gauge error's impact in all the years potentially affected. Accordingly, the court withdrew its earlier mandate and clarified it by ordering the district court to recalculate the effect of gauge error, not only for the years, 1974, 1975, 1978, and 1979, but for the years 1973, 1976, 1985, and 1986 as well, to determine the amount of any excess diversions. View "United States v. Board of Directors" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a conservationist organization, filed suit under the Clean Water Act (the "Act"), 33 U.S.C. 1365(a)(1), alleging that defendants violated a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that governed industrial storm water discharges at three scrap metal recycling facilities that defendants operated. Defendants claimed that two statutory bars, 33 U.S.C. 1319(g)(6)(A)(i)-(iii) and 1365(b)(1)(B), prohibited plaintiff's citizen suit. The court concluded that section 1365(b)(1)(B) did not bar this action because the 2007 and 2008 proceedings aimed to enforce only laws other than the Act. The court also concluded that the statutory bar under section 1319(g)(6)(A)(ii) did not apply to plaintiff's claims because California has commenced no administrative penalty proceeding that was comparable to a proceeding by the EPA under section 1319(g). Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cal. Sportfishing v. Chico Scrap Metal" on Justia Law

Gorlick sued Allied, a competitor in the auto parts market, alleging that Allied was receiving favorable prices from a manufacturer. The court concluded that Gorlick failed to show that Allied had actual knowledge, trade knowledge or a duty to inquire whether the favorable prices it received might be prohibited by the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. 13(f). The court also concluded that Gorlick failed to provide a plausible explanation for how the alleged agreement between a manufacturer and a distributor, concerning a product line without market dominance, caused harm to competition in the entire automotive exhaust product market. Even assuming that a vertical agreement existed and that it affected the price of the products at issue, there's no plausible showing of harm to competition in the market for automotive exhaust products as a whole. Therefore, the court concluded that Gorlick's claim under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, failed as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Allied. View "Gorlick Distrib. Ctrs. v. Car Sound Exhaust Sys." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of involuntary manslaughter, contending that the Ninth Circuit model jury instruction for involuntary manslaughter given by the district court was defective because it failed to tell the jury that "gross negligence," defined as "wanton or reckless disregard for human life," was required for a conviction. The court reversed the conviction, concluding that the jury was not properly instructed that involuntary manslaughter required finding gross negligence. In regards to evidentiary issues, the court concluded that the district court should have allowed defendant to testify about the victim's prior violent acts and the district court should have admitted three photographs that had been posted on the victim's MySpace page, showing the victim holding a sawed-off shotgun, as impeachment evidence. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law