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

Plaintiff filed a putative class action arguing that the sodium content in a "serving" of sunflower seeds must include the sodium contained in the edible coating. The court concluded that, because the coating is edible and is intended to be edible, the portion of the edible coating on the shell of the sunflower seed must be accounted for in the calculation of the sodium content. Because plaintiff's state-law claims, if successful, would impose no greater burden than those imposed by federal law, her state law claims were not preempted. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss. View "Lilly v. ConAgra Foods" on Justia Law

Plaintiff claimed that the judge who presided over the administration of the Yellowstone Mountain Club ski resort's bankruptcy was biased against him and should have recused himself. The bankruptcy judge denied the recusal motion and the district court affirmed. The court rejected plaintiff's claim that the judge made ex part communications; the rulings made by the judge purportedly denied plaintiff due process; and the judge made supposed biased statements during various proceedings. Plaintiff's claims were a transparent attempt to wriggle out of an unfavorable decision by smearing the reputation of the judge who made it. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of the recusal motion. View "Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, former vice president and CFO of National Airlines, filed suit under 26 U.S.C. 7422 against the United States for a refund of taxes erroneously assessed. The United States counterclaimed for the unpaid balance of the tax assessments. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the government on both the claim and counterclaim. The court held that assets are "encumbered" for purposes of 26 U.S.C. 6672 only if "the taxpayer is legally obligated to use the funds for a purpose other than satisfying the preexisting employment tax liability and if that legal obligation is superior to the interest of the IRS in the funds," a test that is not met here. Therefore, the district court properly held that plaintiff willfully failed to pay over excise taxes that he was obligated to pay as a responsible person. The court also held that the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, Pub. L. No. 107-42, section 301(a)(1), did not "allow the airlines to use the excise taxes as working capital" and does not defeat trust status for unpaid excise taxes for purposes of personal liability under section 6672. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Nakano v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Michaels on behalf of California store managers, alleging that Michaels had improperly classified the managers as exempt from overtime. After Michaels removed the case to federal district court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1453, the district court remanded back to state court. The district court concluded that the amount-in-controversy requirement was not met because plaintiffs expressly disclaimed any recovery for the class over $4,999,999.99. In Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, the Supreme Court held that attempted damages waivers, such as plaintiffs', were ineffective, and would not defeat removal under CAFA. Michaels then removed the case again under CAFA and the district court remanded on the basis that the removal ran afoul of CAFA's 30-day time limit. In the alternative, the district court held that Michaels failed to carry its burden to demonstrate that the amount-in-controversy exceeded $5,000,000. The court concluded that the case was not moot; because the two thirty-day removal periods were nonexclusive, Michael's second CAFA removal was timely; and the district court's finding that defendant failed to prove that the amount-in-controversey requirement was met was clearly erroneous under the preponderance of the evidence standard. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Rea v. Michaels Stores" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged the construction of a high-speed rail system (the "Project") that will run through the downtown area of Honolulu under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470 to 470x-6, and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. 303. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on most of the claims and enjoined construction of the fourth phase of the Project pending a remand to the agency on the remaining Section 4(f) claims. The court concluded that plaintiffs timely appealed the dismissal of the remainder of their claims; the court had jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1) or 1291; the Environmental Impact Statement's (EIS's) identification of the project objectives and analysis of alternatives satisfied NEPA's requirements. Further, defendants have not violated Section 4(f) where they considered a Managed Lanes Alternative as well as other alternatives, and where they have made a good faith and reasonable effort to identify known archaeological sites along the proposed Project route and have developed an appropriate plan for dealing with sites that may be discovered during construction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "HonoluluTraffic.com, et al. v. FTA, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry. Defendant had a prior state court conviction for attempted rape in the fourth degree under Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, 531-532, 770. At issue was whether Delaware's criminal attempt statutes constituted a federal generic attempt crime for purposes of imposing an enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines. Because Delaware's statutory definition of "substantial step" was materially different from and encompassed more conduct that the federal generic definition, the Delaware attempt statute criminalized more conduct than the federal generic attempt offense. Therefore, defendant's prior state conviction for an attempt offense did not qualify as a federal generic attempt under the Taylor categorical approach. In light of this statutory definition, the court concluded that the district court erred in imposing the enhancement. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded, concluding that it need not address defendant's remaining arguments. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Monterroso" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the mandatory uniform policy at their children's public elementary school (RGES) under the First Amendment. The court concluded that RGES's inclusion of the motto "Tomorrow's Leaders" on its uniform shirts compelled speech because it mandated the written motto on the uniform shirts. The court also concluded that the exemption for uniforms of "nationally recognized youth organizations such as Boy Scouts and Girls Scouts on a regular meeting days" was content-based. Accordingly, the court concluded that strict scrutiny review applied. Because the district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), RGES was not required to make any showing regarding its justifications for including the written motto or the exemption in the policy. Further, plaintiffs were not given the opportunity to produce any countervailing evidence. The court reversed and remanded for the district court to determine whether defendants' countervailing interest was sufficiently compelling to justify requiring the written motto and the exemption. View "Frudden v. Pilling" on Justia Law

BP shareholders filed a class action alleging that the company knowingly, or with deliberate recklessness, made false and misleading statements about the condition of the Alaskan pipelines and BP's pipeline maintenance and leak detection practices prior to and in the wake of the first oil spill. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's partial dismissal of their complaint under federal securities laws. The court concluded that plaintiffs have adequately pled falsity and materiality, as well as scienter for statements regarding the corrosion rate; plaintiffs have adequately pled falsity and materiality, as well as scienter for statements distinguishing the WOA and EOA lines; plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege scienter for statements regarding BP's "World Class" leak detection system and corrosion monitoring program; plaintiffs adequately pled falsity and scienter for an annual report statement regarding compliance with environmental laws and regulations; and when the court considered the allegations holistically and accepted them to be true, the inference that BP was, at the very least, deliberately reckless as to the false or misleading nature of their public statements was at least as compelling as any opposing inference. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "Reese v. Malone" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging California's concealed handgun laws. At issue was whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen had a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. The court concluded that the right to bear arms included the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home and that carrying weapons for the lawful purpose of self defense was a central component of the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment required that the state permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home. The California scheme did not allow the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Because the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits eschewed history and tradition in their analysis of the constitutionality of such regulations, the court found their approaches unpersuasive. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court erred in denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the Second Amendment claim because the County's "good cause" permitting requirement impermissibly infringed on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense. View "Peruta v. County of San Diego" on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty in Oregon state court to three counts of compelling prostitution, three counts of rape, three counts of sodomy, and one count of sexual abuse. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's determination that he failed to demonstrate actual innocence of the compelling prostitution counts under Schlup v. Delo. The court concluded that petitioner was actually innocent of compelling prostitution where he induced his daughter to have sex with him, not a third party, in exchange for money and cigarettes. The court held that his untimeliness as to these counts was excused. However, petitioner failed to demonstrate actual innocence under Schlup with respect to the other counts on which he was convicted and his petition was therefore untimely as to those counts. Accordingly, the court reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. View "Vosgien v. Kilmer" on Justia Law