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

The SEC brought a civil enforcement action against numerous defendants allegedly involved in a scheme to sell unregistered securities of CMKM. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the SEC, ruling that Global, Helen Bagley, and Brian Dvorak participated in an unregistered distribution of securities in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77e. The court concluded that a material issue of fact remained regarding whether Global and Bagley were necessary participants and substantial factors in the distribution of CMKM securities sufficient to impose liability under Section 5. Accordingly, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment as to Global and Bagley, remanding for further proceedings. The court affirmed the magistrate judge's denial of Dvorak's motion to stay and the district court's disgorgement order as to Dvorak. View "SEC v. CMKM Diamonds, Inc." on Justia Law

After plaintiff was disciplined for serving process on defendant, a prison official, plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging unconstitutional retaliation. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant. The court concluded that plaintiff's acknowledgment that the disciplinary report was not issued because of his other litigation activities compelled the conclusion that defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the retaliation claim to the extent it was based on prior lawsuits. The court also concluded that plaintiff did not engage in protected conduct when he served process on another inmate's behalf; the court rejected defendant's access-to-courts arguments; and concluded that the First Amendment did not protect plaintiff's attempted service of process on defendant because of the general incompatibility between prison and free association and because there was no evidence of expressive association. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Blaisdell v. Frappiea" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Google under the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2511, after the antennas and software installed in Google's Street View cars collected basic identifying information transmitted by Wi-Fi networks, as well as gathered and stored "payload data" that was sent and received over unencrypted Wi-Fi connections. On appeal, Google challenged the district court's denial of its motion to dismiss based on the Wiretap Act's exemption for electronic communication that was readily accessible to the general public. The court held that the phrase "radio communication" in section 2510(16) excluded payload data transmitted over a Wi-Fi network. Consequently, the definition of "readily accessible to the general public [] with respect to a radio communication" in section 2510(16) did not apply to the exemption for an "electronic communication" that was "readily accessible to the general public" under section 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(g)(i). The court also held that payload data transmitted over an unencrypted Wi-Fi network was not "readily accessible to the general public" under the ordinary meaning of the phrase as it was used in section 2511(2)(g)(i). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Joffe v. Google, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of second degree burglary, challenged the district court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that it was untimely. The court held, however, that petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling on the ground that he relied on the assigned magistrate judge's order extending the filing deadline beyond the statutory limit. The court also held that petitioner sufficiently alleged that he was precluded from filing his habeas petition within the time period provided in the magistrate judge's order to warrant further development of the record. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the district court, remanding for further proceedings. View "Sossa v. Diaz" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, four landlords, challenged the constitutionality of the City's Rent Escrow Account Program (REAP). The Housing Department places property into REAP when a landlord fails to repair habitability violations and tenants pay a reduced rent. The court concluded that placing plaintiffs' property into REAP did not violate plaintiffs' substantive due process rights where REAP served legitimate governmental goals and was rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose; plaintiffs' procedural challenge could not support an as-applied substantive due process claim; and denial of leave to amend the complaint was not an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. View "Sylvia Landfield Trust v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

This appeal concerned a dispute over attorney's fees related to a settlement of numerous civil rights lawsuits against the City and others. The court held that several important principles bear on the district court's determination of a reasonable fee amount: (1) the court must compute the fee award using an hourly rate that is based on the "prevailing market rates in the relevant community;" (2) when a district court reduces either the number of hours or the lodestar by a certain percentage greater than 10%, it must provide a clear and concise explanation for why it chose the specific percentage to apply; and (3) it was not per se unreasonable for the prevailing party in a civil rights case to be awarded an amount of attorney's fees that exceeds the amount of money recovered by his or her client. In this instance, the court vacated and remanded because the district court did not apply these principles when determining the amount of plaintiffs' attorney's fee award. View "Gonzalez v. City of Maywood" on Justia Law

Defendants Bonilla and Calixtro appealed their convictions and sentences stemming from charges related to their involvement in a plan to hold an illegal alien hostage until he paid defendants certain sums of money. The court concluded that the district court did not err in admitting an ICE agent's expert testimony where the fact that the agent's potential bias happened to result from his employment by the Government was not also grounds for categorically barring his testimony; from the record, the court did not know whether the district court found Bonilla managed another participant in the crime under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c); and the district court plainly erred in calculating the range of Calixtro's sentence by apply the U.S.S.G. 2A41.(b)(3) enhancement to his sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions but vacated defendants' sentences, remanding for resentencing. View "United States v. Bonilla-Guizar" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of felony murder, one count of robbery, and one count of grand theft. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on Atkins v. Virginia. In response to Atkins, Idaho enacted a law prohibiting execution of mentally retarded criminals. The court concluded that the Idaho Supreme Court's application of Atkins was not objectively unreasonable where the Supreme Court left the definition of mentally retarded persons broadly open for consistent state-court decisions. Further, the Idaho Supreme Court's factual findings were not unreasonable in light of the record. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. View "Pizzuto v. Blades" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision denying a motion to reopen. Petitioner entered the United States to flee an abusive relationship and claimed that she feared persecution in China because she violated China's family planning policy by giving birth to two children in the United States and by being unmarried. The court granted the petition for review because the BIA abused its discretion when it held petitioner to an incorrect legal standard and failed to properly consider much of her relevant evidence. View "Zhao v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of a crack cocaine offense. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion for a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court affirmed the judgment, holding that it had jurisdiction to review section 3582(c)(2) discretionary decisions pursuant to United States v. Colson, which was not "clearly irreconcilable" with Dillon v. United States. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a reduced sentence where it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and relied on facts supported by the record. View "United States v. Dunn" on Justia Law