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

Hokto USA, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hokuto Co., Ltd., filed suit against Concord Farms for violating its rights to marks under which it markets its Certified Organic Mushrooms, which are produced in the United States. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Hokto USA and Hokuto Japan on all claims and entered a permanent injunction against Concord Farms. Determining that this was a classic gray-market case, the court concluded that, because Concord Farms offered no other evidence that its imported mushrooms were not "materially different" from Hokto USA's mushrooms, the district court correctly concluded that they were not genuine Hokto USA goods; the district court correctly concluded that there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Concord Farms's importation of Hokuto Japan mushrooms was likely to confuse consumers; and the district court did not err in concluding that Hokuto Japan did not engage in naked licensing where, given the close working relationship, Hokuto Japan was familiar with and reasonably relied upon Hokto USA's efforts to control the quality of the mushrooms it distributed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of Hokto USA's and Hokuto Japan's motion for summary judgment and affirmed the permanent injunction, denying Concord Farms's motion for summary judgment. View "Hokto Kinoko Co. v. Concord Farms, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction after pleading guilty to unlawful reentry into the United States. The court held that a prior felony conviction under Florida Statutes section 800.04(4)(a) for lewd and lascivious battery did not qualify as a crime of violence because the crime did not constitute a forcible sex offense or statutory rape within the meaning of the applicable Guidelines. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Caceres-Olla" on Justia Law

After the jury had been empaneled, the district court accepted defendant's guilty plea, declared a mistrial, and discharged the jury. After successfully moving to rescind his guilty plea, defendant sought to avoid trial altogether by invoking the Double Jeopardy Clause's protection of his right to have the first empaneled jury decide his case. The court concluded that, in this case, it was difficult to understand why defendant should be treated differently from one who was coerced into pleading guilty before a jury was empaneled. Defendant already had achieved a remedy for the alleged violation of Rule 11 - withdrawal from the plea agreement. The Double Jeopardy Clause protects a defendant from improper attempts by the prosecutor or the judge to avoid having the empaneled jury reach a verdict, but it did not give an added benefit to a defendant when alleged misconduct happened to occur after the jury had been empaneled but bears no relations to the identity, composition, or proceeding of that particular jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Mondragon" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions for aiding and abetting offenses. In this case, there was evidence that defendant suffered from a low I.Q. or a learning disability and there was no written waiver. The court concluded that the jury-trial waiver was invalid because the district court failed to take necessary precautions to ensure that defendant's jury-trial waiver was made knowingly and intelligently. Although the court reversed defendant's conviction on all counts, the court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's aiding and abetting convictions and, therefore, the Double Jeopardy Clause was not implicated and the government could retry defendant on all counts. View "United States v. Shorty" on Justia Law

Defendant, a federal sex offender, appealed his conviction under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq., for failing to register. The court held that the Attorney General has not validly specified that 42 U.S.C. 16913(a)'s requirement of initial registration in the jurisdiction of the sex-offense conviction applied to offenders like defendant - offenders who were, at the time of SORNA's enactment and implementation, already subject to sex-offender registration obligations under a pre-SORNA scheme. The court concluded that the jury instructions contained an error of law in that they permitted the jury to convict solely on the basis of defendant's failure to register in the jurisdiction of his sex offense conviction and the error was harmful. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for a judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. DeJarnette" on Justia Law

Woodlands challenged several aspects of the Corps' Environmental Assessment (EA), and issuance of a "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI) in lieu of preparing a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) concerning ORC's application for a permit to mine valuable mineral sands in Oregon. The court concluded that the Corps complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321, because the Corps properly considered the risks of hexavalent chromium generation; concluded that the risk of hexavalent chromium generation did not warrant a full EIS; and declined to consider cumulative impacts of future chromium mining. Further, the Corps' alternative analysis did not violate the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251. The court rejected Woodlands' arguments and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Corps. View "Jones v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a noncitizen "enemy combatant" undergoing proceedings before a military commission at Guatanamo Bay, sought a declaratory judgment that the commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the charges against him because the alleged acts occurred in Yemen, where he argued no war or hostilities existed in 2000 or 2002. The court held, pursuant to Hamad v. Gates, that Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act, 28 U.S.C. 2241(e), deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's suit. The court rejected plaintiff’s claims challenging the constitutionality of the Act. View "Al-Nashiri v. MacDonald" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for criminal copyright infringement based on his sale of Adobe software. The court applied the willfulness standard for criminal copyright cases as recently clarified in United States v. Liu and concluded that the jury instruction was flawed but did not rise to the level of plain error; the evidence of uncharged acts was properly admitted as intrinsic to the charged conduct and the court affirmed the conviction; and the district court erred in failing to award restitution reflecting the victim's actual loss and the court vacated the restitution order and remanded for reconsideration. View "United States v. Anderson, Jr." on Justia Law

Kalitta filed suit against numerous defendants, including CTAS, alleging various causes of action stemming from the modification of two of its aircraft from passenger to cargo planes. In this appeal, Kalitta challenged the district court's award of costs to CTAS following a jury's unanimous verdict in favor of CTAS. The court reversed the district court's award of costs for the pro hac vice admission of CTAS's counsel; reversed the district court's award of costs for editing and synchronizing deposition videotapes; and affirmed the court's award of costs for graphics consultants and the 2002 costs award. View "Kalitta Air L.L.C. v. Cent. Texas Airborne Sys." on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of a protracted dispute over attorneys' fees awarded in the Wal-Mart wage and hour multidistrict litigation. Appellants, the Burton Group, appealed from the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award allocating attorneys' fees, contending that the district court erred in declining to vacate the award under section 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 10(a). The court concluded that a non-appealability clause in an arbitration agreement that eliminates all federal court review of arbitration awards, including review under section 10(a) of the FAA, was not enforceable. Accordingly, the court proceeded to the merits of the Burton Group's claims, and affirmed the district court's confirmation of the arbitration award in a memorandum disposition filed contemporaneously with this opinion. View "In re: Wal-Mart" on Justia Law