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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of China, sought review of the BIA's decision, which substantially adopted the IJ's order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner failed to testify that she was physically abused during her detention until she was prompted to do so by her attorney. The court concluded that, because this inconsistency was sufficient to support the IJ's adverse credibility finding, the court need not comment on the remaining grounds cited by the BIA. Petitioner's withholding of removal and CAT claims also failed. Petitioner also claimed that the IJ deprived her of her due process right to a full and fair hearing where the IJ abandoned her role as a neutral fact-finder and imposed "moral judgment" on petitioner's relationship with her roommate. The court concluded that, even if petitioner had shown that the IJ's questioning prevented her from reasonably presenting her case, she failed to articulate how this alleged violation of due process affected the outcome of the proceedings. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Jiang v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal of their claims related to the formation and operation of the MERS System, an electronic mortgage registration system. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction appellants' appeal of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) Order because they have not sought a writ of mandamus; the court held that appellants have waived their argument regarding the MDL Court's remand orders; nothing in the record suggested that the MDL Court considered extraneous materials in ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); therefore, the MDL Court did not convert defendants' motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment; the court reversed the MDL Court's dismissal of Count I, alleged violations of Arizona's false documents statute; affirmed the MDL Court's dismissal of Count II, wrongful foreclosure; affirmed the MDL Court's dismissal of Count III, Nevada Revised Statutes 107.080; affirmed the MDL Court's dismissal of Count V, aiding and abetting wrongful foreclosure under Arizona, California, and Nevada law; affirmed the MDL Court's dismissal of Count VI, aiding and abetting predatory lending under Arizona, California, and Nevada law; and concluded that the MDL Court acted within its discretion in denying leave to amend. View "In re: MERS" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after deportation. The court concluded that the district court's sentencing methodology was proper because the district court adequately considered the Guidelines in fashioning defendant's sentence. Applying the modified categorical approach, the court concluded that the portion of the Arizona statute under which defendant was previously convicted was categorically a forcible sex offense and therefore a crime of violence under the Guidelines. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Quintero-Junco" on Justia Law

Defendants Goldtooth and Tsosie appealed their convictions on two counts of aiding and abetting robbery on the Navajo Nation. As to count 1, the court concluded that no rational juror could have found that defendants had advanced knowledge that the robbery was going to occur. As to count 2, the government acknowledges that defendants could only have been convicted of attempting to rob the victim's money or wallet because nothing was actually taken from him. Because the government failed to prove that Goldtooth or Tsosie possessed the mental state required for the underlying crime of attempted robbery, it necessarily failed to prove that either man had aided and abetted any such attempt. Accordingly, the court reversed the convictions and remanded for entry of judgment of acquittal on both counts. View "United States v. Goldtooth" on Justia Law

This appeal involves parallel judicial proceedings initiated by ReadyLink in state court and in federal court. ReadyLink contended that a decision by the Commissioner was preempted by IRS regulations. The federal district court abstained pursuant to Younger v. Harris and while the district court judgment was pending, the California Court of Appeal rejected ReadyLink's preemption claim. The California Supreme Court denied review. The court applied the Supreme Court's guidance in Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs and found that the district court erred by abstaining. Applying the California issue preclusion test, the court concluded that the decision of the California Court of Appeals barred ReadyLink's preemption claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. View "ReadyLink Healthcare v. SCIF" on Justia Law

This case arose from general liability insurance policies, including advertising injury coverage, that Great American issued to Street Surfing. At issue was whether those policies obligated Great American to defend Street Surfing in an action alleging trademark infringement, unfair competition, and unfair business practices under federal and California law (Noll action). The court accepted Great American's concession that the Noll action potentially falls within coverage for use of another's advertising idea, but rejected Street Surfing's argument that the action would also fall within the policies' coverage for slogan infringement. The court held that the prior publication exclusion relieves Great American of its duty to defend Street Surfing in the Noll action because the extrinsic evidence available to Great American at the time of tender conclusively establishes: (1) that Street Surfing published at least one advertisement using Noll's advertising idea before coverage began; and (2) that the new advertisements Street Surfing published during the coverage period were substantially similar to that pre-coverage advertisement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Great American. View "Street Surfing v. Great Am. E&S Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the City and the ECCC, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and various California statutes. Plaintiff tripped and fell as he tried to walk around a car show vendor's display blocking a curb ramp. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. The court concluded that the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the City because the district court relied on an inapplicable legal standard and because there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the City denied plaintiff access to a public service or otherwise discriminated against him under Title II. Because the City was not entitled to summary judgment on the ADA claim, the district court erred by granting summary judgment for the City on plaintiff's claims under the California statutes. The court took no position on whether the City did in fact deny plaintiff access to a public service or discriminate against him by reason of disability under 42 U.S.C. 12132. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cohen v. City of Culver City" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her action claiming that she was the rightful owner to two works of art my Lucas Cranach, "Adam" and "Eve." Plaintiff claimed that she is the rightful owner of the works, which the Nazis forcibly purchased from her deceased husband's family during World War II. The court reversed and concluded that plaintiff's claims for replevin and conversion, as well as the remedies she seeks, do not conflict with federal policy because the Cranachs were never subject to postwar internal restitution proceedings in the Netherlands. Allowing plaintiff's claim to go forward would not disturb the finality of any internal restitution proceedings - appropriate or not - in the Netherlands. Nor is this dispute of the sort found to involve the international problems evident in American Insurance Association v. Garamendi. The court was mindful that the litigation of this case may implicate the act of state doctrine, though the court could not decide that issue definitively on the record. The court remanded for further development of this issue. View "Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of a putative class action alleging violations of California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971, Cal. Civ. Code 1747.08. The Act prohibits retailers from collecting personal identification information in connection with credit card transactions. Plaintiffs alleged that Redbox violated the Act by imposing that customers using credit cards provide their ZIP codes to obtain discs from Redbox kiosks. The court concluded that Redbox's alleged conduct does not violate the Act where the statute exempts certain transactions, including those where "the credit card is being used as a deposit to secure payment in the event of default, loss, damage, or similar occurrence." Accordingly, the court dismissed the action. View "Sinibaldi v. Redbox" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his claims against the Fund and others under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq. For over three years, the Fund paid plaintiff monthly pension benefits he had not earned. This case arose from the events that occurred after the Fund discovered the error. The court concluded that it was bound by its own precedent, which correctly identifies surcharge as including only unjust enrichment and losses to the trust estate; the district court properly concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to relief based on estoppel as a matter of law; equitable remedies were not available to plaintiff where the order plaintiff sought necessarily would require violating the terms of the Plan by deeming an ineligible person to be eligible for pension benefits; and the surcharge remedy plaintiff sought would not restore the trust estate, but rather would wrongfully deplete it by paying him benefits he is not eligible to receive under the Plan. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff's breach of fiduciary and co-fiduciary duty claims under section 1132(a)(3). The court rejected plaintiff's argument that the Fund failed to comply with ERISA procedural requirements, or that it waived its determination that plaintiff never vested. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's deference to the Fund's denial of benefits. View "Gabriel v. Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, et al." on Justia Law