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

Appellants brought quiet title actions challenging tax liens filed by the IRS against certain commercial and residential properties. Appellants held legal title to these properties. The liens arose from assessments against taxpayers based on the IRS's claim that appellants held the relevant properties as nominees of taxpayers on the assessment dates. On appeal, appellants argued that California did not recognize nominee ownership. The court held, however, that California law did recognize a nominee theory of property ownership; the district court did not err in concluding that appellants held title to the McCall and Fourth properties as nominees of taxpayers; and the district court rejected appellants' joinder claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a) where appellants have not established that the absent entities at issue were necessary parties under Rule 19(a) and the district court properly resolved appellants' ownership interests in the McCall and Fourth properties in their absence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Fourth Investment LP v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence stemming from his plea of guilty to one count of being a previously deported alien found in the United States. Defendant claimed that the government implicitly breached the plea agreement by describing his prior convictions and including inflammatory language in its sentencing memorandum. The court concluded that, even if a breach of the plea agreement occurred, defendant had not established that this alleged breach amounted to plain error. Accordingly, the court did not reach the issue of whether the arguments contained in the government's sentencing memorandum constituted a breach of the plea agreement and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Aguilar" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants, alleging violations of his constitutional rights after prison officials discovered a letter plaintiff wrote to his fellow inmates calling on them to work together in support of his class action lawsuit against prison administrators. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's adverse partial summary judgment order on his First Amendment claims. Pursuant to the Accord and Satisfaction, the parties agreed to withdraw all post-trial motions. Defendants also agreed to pay plaintiff punitive damages, plus costs and attorney's fees, and to expunge all records of the disciplinary charges. The Accord and Satisfaction encompassed the district court's prior summary judgment ruling on plaintiff's First Amendment claims. Accordingly, the court concluded that plaintiff's appeal was rendered moot by the parties' settlement agreement and dismissed the appeal. View "Jones v. McDaniel, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision finding her ineligible for voluntary departure for failure to establish the physical presence requirement of 8 U.S.C. 1229c(b)(1)(A). The BIA concluded that the IJ correctly determined that she failed to demonstrate that exceptional and extremely unusual hardship would result for her children and saw "no clear error" in the IJ's reasoning denying removal. The court had jurisdiction to consider the petition because the REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 302, restored appellate jurisdiction over constitutional claims or questions of law in challenges to denials of voluntary departure under section 1229c. The court interpreted "physically present" under section 1229c(b)(1)(A) as requiring uninterrupted presence in the United States for at least one year and denied the petition for review for failure to meet this statutory requirement. View "Corro-Barragan v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, challenging the district court's failure to order production of certain U.S. Border Patrol dispatch tapes. Without listening to the tapes, the district court concluded that defendant's showing of materiality was speculative. The tapes could have been crucial to defendant's ability to assess the reliability of the Border Patrol agent's testimony and to cross-examine him effectively. Moreover, the tapes were clearly relevant to defendant's location and the official restraint defense. Accordingly, the court vacated the conviction and remanded, concluding that the district court erred in excluding potentially exculpatory evidence. View "United States v. Muniz-Jaquez" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants claiming that the BLM's management of grazing within the Breaks Monument violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1701-1787; Proclamation No. 7398, 3 C.F.R. 7398; and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347. The court held that the BLM reasonably interpreted the Proclamation to not require programmatic changes to grazing management policies and that the Breaks environmental impact statement complied with NEPA. The court held, however, that the environmental assessment for the Woodhawk Allotment violated NEPA by not considering a reasonable range of alternatives that included a no- or reduced-grazing option. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Western Watersheds Project v. Abbey" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitioned for review of the decision of the BIA denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court reversed the BIA's denial of petitioner's applications for asylum and withholding of removal, and remanded for the BIA to determine whether petitioner had a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a political opinion or whether he was more likely than not to be persecuted on account of a political opinion. The court denied the petition with regards to petitioner's claims for relief under the CAT where substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusion that petitioner failed to show that he was more likely than not to be tortured if he returned to El Salvador. Accordingly, the court granted and remanded in part and denied in part. View "Regalado-Escobar v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his conviction for making a false statement and obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 1512(c). In this appeal, the court considered defendant's claim that the district court gave an erroneous instruction on section 1512(c). The court rejected defendant's argument that the district court erred by not including the words "evil" and "wicked" in the challenged instruction on the meaning of "corruptly" and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Watter" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, current and former employees of Amgen and AML, participated in two employer-sponsored pension plans, the Amgen Plan and the AML Plan. The Plans were employee stock-ownership plans that qualified as "eligible individual account plans" (EIAPs) under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1107(d)(3)(A). Plaintiffs filed an ERISA class action against Amgen, AML, and others after the value of Amgen common stock fell, alleging that defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA. The court concluded that defendants were not entitled to a presumption of prudence under Quan v. Computer Sciences Corp., that plaintiffs have stated claims under ERISA in Counts II through VI, and that Amgen was a properly named fiduciary under the Amgen Plan. Therefore, the court reversed the decision of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Harris v. Amgen" on Justia Law

Higher Taste sued the Park district under 42 U.S.C. 1983, requesting a declaration that Resolution 40-05 violated its rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and an injunction barring the resolution's enforcement. The district court granted Higher Taste's motion for a preliminary injunction, expressly ruling that Higher Taste had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. The parties later executed a written settlement agreement. Higher Taste then moved for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988(b), which permitted an award to the "prevailing party" in certain civil rights actions, including those brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court denied the motion. The court reversed and concluded that, because Higher Taste was a prevailing party within the meaning of section 1988, it should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust. On remand, the district court should determine in the first instance whether such special circumstances exist. View "Higher Taste, Inc. v. City of Tacoma" on Justia Law