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

Retired Employees and their spouses filed suit against the County, alleging that the Retired Employees have an implied vested right to the pooling of their health care premiums with those of current employees ("pooled premiums"). The court affirmed the district court's order granting the County's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Retired Employees failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact where they did not show any link to Retired Employees' claim of an implied right to an ongoing pool premium; a practice or policy extended over a period of time did not translate into an implied contract without clear legislative intent to create that right - and intent that Retired Employees has not demonstrated in this case; Retired Employees' assertions that its involvement in negotiations with the County revealed an implied contract right to the pooled premium also lacked evidentiary support; and the nature of Retired Employees' evidence underscored the absence of any definitive intent or commitment on the part of the County to provide for the pooled premium. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of the County's motion for summary judgment. View "REAOC v. County of Orange" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud and three counts of health care fraud. On appeal, defendants challenged their sentences. The court held that, in health care fraud cases, the amount billed to an insurer shall constitute prima facie evidence of intended loss for sentencing purposes. If not rebutted, this evidence shall constitute sufficient evidence to establish the intended loss by a preponderance of the evidence. However, the parties may introduce additional evidence to support arguments that the amount billed overestimated or understated the defendant's intent. In this instance, the court vacated defendants' sentences on the issue of intended loss because the record left the court uncertain as to what the district court understood the law to be with respect to calculating intended loss for sentencing purposes and there was evidence suggesting that defendants may have been aware that Medicare only payed a fixed amount. When viewed in conjunction with the evidence that defendants were the only two named physicians on the clinic's sign, the documents were sufficient to support the district court's finding that Defendant Popov's bills to Medicare were foreseeable to Defendant Prakash. The court vacated the sentences and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Popov" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release by illegally reentering the country after he had been deported. The court held that the provisions in Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure pertaining to initial appearances were inapplicable when a defendant was in custody on underlying criminal charges at the time the revocation proceedings were initiated. Therefore, the magistrate judge did not err in failing to inform defendant of the allegations against him at the initial proceeding. The court also concluded that defendant was provided proper notice of the alleged violations of his supervised release. Finally, defendant's revocation sentence of 21 months was reasonable and defendant was not entitled to the protections of Boykin v. Alabama. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Vasquez-Perez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for receipt of material involving the sexual exploitation of minors. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that his redacted confession was not misleading to the jury and, therefore, that the Rule of Completeness did not require admission of the full statement into evidence; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to instruct the jury on possession; the court joined its sister circuits in holding that it did not matter, for purposes of the sentencing enhancement, whether someone else actually downloaded a file from the defendant's computer; the district court did not abuse its discretion when it applied a two-level distribution enhancement in calculating defendant's sentence; and the district court did not misread the Sentencing Guidelines, which explicitly authorized a distribution enhancement for defendants convicted of receiving, transporting, shipping, soliciting, or advertising material involving the sexual exploitation of a minor. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Vallejos" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of offenses related to the attempted murder of his wife, appealed the denial of his federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). The court concluded that the state trial court did not unreasonably conclude that Juror No. 6 had credibly testified that he would be a fair and impartial juror; Juror No. 6's consideration of extrinsic evidence did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict on Counts II and IV; the record supported the California Court of Appeal's finding that the guilty jury verdict was unanimous on Counts III and IV and its decision was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding; and because defendant failed to state a due process claim in violation of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, the court did not reach defendant's final argument. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Smith v. Swarthout" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of maliciously damaging the real property of the United States by fire. On appeal, the government challenged defendants' sentences. Defendants, ranchers, set fires on their property that spread to nearby public lands. The court concluded that the government did not waive its right to appeal where the principles of governing the formation and interpretation of plea agreements left no room for implied waivers. The court held that the district court illegally sentenced defendants to terms of imprisonment less than the statutory minimum. Although the district court attempted to justify lesser sentences on Eighth Amendment grounds, sentencing defendants to five years of imprisonment, the statutory minimum, would not have been unconstitutional. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "United States v. Hammond" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of charges related to his participation in a scheme involving the fraudulent issuance of airline passenger tickets. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's partial denial of his Motion to Clarify Conditions of Supervised Release and the Amount and Current Status of Restitution. Determining that the district court retained jurisdiction to calculate the amount of restitution owing, the court concluded that, in general, restitution and forfeiture are two separate and distinct parts of a criminal sentence, and a defendant did not have a right to have forfeited funds applied to a restitution obligation or to have the value of the forfeited assets "frozen" at the moment they were turned over to the government. The court also concluded that, because the restitution amount was fulfilled through the forfeited assets, defendant did not have any remaining restitution obligation. Accordingly, defendant's restitution balance has been satisfied and the court reversed the district court's order. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his claim under Rule 12(b)(6), alleging that Nationstar violated section 533 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), 50 U.S.C. app. 533, when it maintained certain fees related to a rescinded Notice of Default on his account while he was on active duty. Because the state-law statutory definition of foreclosure contemplates the inclusion of specified fees as part of the foreclosure proceeding, and because the Supreme Court has unambiguously required courts to give a broad construction to the statutory language of the SCRA to effectuate the Congressional purpose of granting active-duty members of the armed forces repose from some of the trials and tribulations of civilian life, the court held that the attempted collection of fees related to a Notice of Default on a California property constituted a violation of section 533. In this case, plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to allege that Nationstar's continuing failure to remove the fees incidental to the Notice of Default was a continuation of that foreclosure proceeding while plaintiff was on active duty service in violation of section 533. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Brewster v. Sun Trust Mortgage" on Justia Law

GLAAD filed a putative class action alleging that CNN violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code 51 et seq., and California's Disabled Persons Act (DPA), Cal. Civ. Code 54 et seq., by intentionally excluding deaf and hard of hearing visitors from accessing the videos on CNN.com. CNN filed a motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP law, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16 et seq., arguing that GLAAD's claims arose from conduct in furtherance of CNN's free speech rights and that GLAAD failed to establish a probability of prevailing on its claims. The court concluded that CNN's conduct was in furtherance of its free speech rights on a matter of public interest; where, as here, an action directly targeted the way a content provider chose to deliver, present, or publish news content on matters of public interest, that action was based on conduct in furtherance of free speech rights and must withstand scrutiny under California's anti-SLAPP statute; GLAAD failed to establish a probability of success on the merits of its Unruh Act claims because it has not shown intentional discrimination based on disability as required under California law; at this juncture, none of CNN's constitutional challenges posed a barrier to GLAAD's pursuit of its DPA claims; GLAAD's DPA claims were not foreclosed by the doctrines of field preemption and conflict preemption; GLAAD's DPA claims have the requisite minimal merit to survive CNN's free speech challenge and dormant Commerce Clause challenge; and the court certified to the California Supreme Court the remaining dispositive question of state law regarding GLAAD's DPA claims. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order denying CNN's motion to dismiss. View "Greater L.A. Agency on Deafness v. CNN" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. 1365(a), which prohibits, inter alia, tampering with any consumer product that affects interstate commerce. Defendant, a pharmacist at a grocery store, moved to dismiss the counts for failure to state an offense. The district court denied the motion and defendant appealed. The court concluded that, in light of Congress' clear statements upon enacting section 1365(a), and consistent with the rule of lenity, the more restrictive definition of "tamper" - one that requires alteration or adulteration of the item tampered - should apply. In this case, the indictment sufficiently alleged "tampering" by alleging that defendant opened a box containing Fentanyl patches, removed the patches, and re-glued the box. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Lyle, Jr." on Justia Law