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

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

Defendant, a Mexican citizen, alleged that the Arizona crime of conviction, "attempt to commit smuggling" in violation of A.R.S. 13-2319, did not categorically fit the federal definition of an alien smuggling offense and thus ought not to have triggered a sixteen-level sentencing guidelines enhancement. On the merits, the parties agreed that defendant was improperly sentenced. However, the issue on appeal was the proper appellate remedy for defendant who was entitled to a resentencing but, having been deported, was unable to be present for a resentencing hearing. The court affirmed the sentence without prejudice, pursuant to United States v. Plancarte-Alvarez, to a later request by defendant, if and when he should return to the United States or waive his right to be physically present at resentencing, that his previous sentence be vacated and that he be resentenced in light of this opinion. View "United States v. Aguilar-Reyes" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for both receipt and possession of child pornography, alleging violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court concluded that the conjunctive phrasing of the indictment created the possibility of multiplicitous convictions, and neither the government nor the district court did anything to remove that possibility. Therefore, the district court's entry of judgment on both counts, absent some assurance that the convictions were based on separate conduct, was error. However, the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights and, thus, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Teague" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a C-5 quadriplegic, filed suit alleging unlawful discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and related California disability laws, claiming that Peter Piper Pizza prevented him from moving around the restaurant. At issue was whether any barriers interfered with plaintiff's ability "to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations" of the restaurant. Plaintiff missed the period for disclosing his expert and, instead, incorporated the expert's pronouncements into his own presentation, putting forth the expert as a rebuttal expert. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, concluding that plaintiff lacked personal knowledge of the barriers he encountered and that his declaration was insufficient. The court reversed and remanded, concluding that the district court abused its discretion in discounting defendant's evidence as lacking personal knowledge and constituted improper expert testimony. The district court also erred in requiring a showing that removal of any barriers was "readily achievable." View "Strong v. Valdez Fine Foods, et al." on Justia Law

The parties dispute whether the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(d)(2), limited the amount that plaintiff, a prisoner who qualified as a prevailing party who would ordinarily be entitled to an award of attorney's fees, could recover from defendant for attorney's fees incurred in defending his judgment on appeal to 150 percent of the monetary relief awarded to him at trial. The court held that the fee cap in section (d)(2) did not apply to attorney's fees earned in conjunction with an appeal in which prison officials sought unsuccessfully to reverse a verdict obtained by the prisoner before the district court. The court granted plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees on appeal and referred the matter to the Appellate Commissioner to determine the amount of such fees, as well as the amount of reimbursable costs. View "Woods v. Carey" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Marvel for patent infringement and breach of contract, claiming that it had used his ideas in developing a Spider-Man role-playing toy called the "Web Blaster" without compensating him. The parties subsequently agreed to settle the case while appeals were pending and executed a Settlement Agreement. Thereafter, Marvel entered into a licensing agreement with Hasbro giving it the right to produce the Web Blaster. At issue was the calculation of royalties for subsequent iterations of the Web Blaster. The court joined its sister circuits in holding, pursuant to Brulotte v. Thys Co., that a so-called "hybrid" licensing agreement encompassing inseparable patent and non-patent rights was unenforceable beyond the expiration date of the underlying patent, unless the agreement provided a discounted rate for the non-patent rights or some other clear indication that the royalty at issue was in no way subject to patent leverage. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Marvel, concluding that plaintiff could not recover royalties under the Settlement Agreement beyond the expiration date of the patent at issue. View "Kimble v. Marvel Enter., Inc." on Justia Law