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

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that correctional officers used excessive force in restraining him while he was incarcerated at High Desert State Prison. After defendants prevailed at trial, plaintiff appealed. The court rejected the government's argument that plaintiff waived his right to appeal the magistrate's findings on exhaustion because plaintiff did not specifically object to them; plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies against Defendant Turner; Heck v. Humphrey did not require the challenged jury instruction that he resisted the officers and the likelihood of prejudice was difficult to overcome; and, therefore, the court reversed as to summary judgment for Turner, and vacated and remanded for a new trial. View "Wilkerson v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed a motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The court concluded that defendant's argument that he is eligible for sentence reduction under Amendment 759 is foreclosed by the court's decision in defendant's previous appeal. The court rejected defendant's argument that the 2011 amendment to Application Note 6 of U.S.S.G. 1B1.10 violates the Ex Post Facto Clause by directing district courts to "use the version of this policy statement that is in effect on the date on which the court reduces the defendant's term of imprisonment." The court concluded that the application of the 2011 version of section 1B1.10 to defendant's case may have prevented him from benefiting from recent reductions in the harsh crack cocaine penalties, but because application of the amendments would not increase the punishment for his crime over what was imposed when he was sentenced, there is no post facto problem. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Waters, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession and subsequently appealed his sentence imposed under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e). The court concluded that the district court did not err in concluding that his prior conviction under California Vehicle Code 2800.2 for vehicle flight from a pursuing peace officer was a violent felony under the ACCA's residual clause. Further, Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent foreclosed defendant's argument that the ACCA's residual clause is unconstitutionally vague as applied to his prior conviction; the rule of lenity is not applicable; and there is no plain error on the basis of Apprendi v. New Jersey. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

This action arose from a partnership's attempted use of a bogus tax shelter to offset capital gains and the Commissioner's subsequent denial of a $32.5 million "loss" claimed by the partnership to eliminate income tax liability on an asset sale resulting in a $28 million capital gain. The Tax Court ruled that a taxpayer holding both direct and indirect interests in a partnership may elect under section 6223(e)(3)(B) of the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), 26 U.S.C. 6221-6232, not to be bound by the results of a partnership proceeding - or partnership audit - as to some, but not all, of those interests held during the relevant taxable year. The court held that the meaning of the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, and it means that unless a partner elects to have all of his or her partnership items treated as nonpartnership items, the partner cannot elect out of the TEFRA proceeding. The court concluded that the Tax Court's reading of the disputed statute was incorrect. The court also concluded that the IRS's sloppy administrative errors, including mailing the wrong form letter to the taxpayers, were not sufficient either to require a different outcome or to stop the IRS from pursuing this matter and its claims. Because the court held that the taxpayers' disputed elections to opt out were invalid, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "JT USA v. CIR" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the BIA's denial of his motion to reopen. The court held that the BIA has authority to reopen proceedings of an alien who is under a final order of removal in order to afford the alien an opportunity to pursue an adjustment of status application before USCIS; this authority is granted, at minimum, by the unambiguous language of 8 C.F.R. 1003.2(a); because the Board's contrary holding in Matter of Yauri contravenes this regulation's plain language and the court's decision in Kalilu v. Holder, the court accorded it no deference and declined to follow it; and, therefore, the court granted the petition for review in No. 10-72626 and remanded to the BIA for an exercise of the agency's discretion. The court denied the petition for review in No. 09-73798 for the reasons stated in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition. View "Singh v. Holder" on Justia Law

Shell sought and obtained approval from the Bureau of two oil spill response plans, relating to the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, required by the Oil Pollution Act, 33 U.S.C. 1321(j). After obtaining approval, Shell filed suit under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201(a), against environmental organizations seeking a declaration that the Bureau's approval did not violate the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 501 et seq. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because Shell lacked Article III standing where Shell does not have legal interests adverse to the Bureau under the APA and it may not file suit solely to determine who would prevail in a hypothetical suit between the environmental groups and the Bureau. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's order denying the environmental groups' motion to dismiss. View "Shell Gulf of Mex. v. Ctr. for Biological Diversity" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Quality and others, alleging that Quality failed to pay him and other similarly situated employees minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's dismissal under Rule 8. Post- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the court reviewed plaintiff's complaint to determine whether the allegations plausibly state a claim that Quality failed to pay minimum wages and overtime wages, keeping in mind that detailed facts are not required. The court was persuaded by the rationale espoused in the First, Second, and Third Circuit cases that in order to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff asserting a claim to overtime payments must allege that she worked more than forty hours in a given workweek without being compensated for the overtime hours worked during that workweek. The court further agreed with its sister circuits that, at a minimum, a plaintiff asserting a violation of the FLSA overtime provisions must allege that she worked more than forty hours in a given workweek without being compensated for the hours worked in excess of forty during that week. In this case, plaintiff failed to state a claim for unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Landers v. Quality Communications" on Justia Law

Mortgages Ltd. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and ML Manager subsequently managed and operated the loans left in Mortgages Ltd.'s portfolio. After confirmation of the plan, Rev Op Group, a group of pass-through investors, moved for an order in the bankruptcy court ruling that ML Manager could not act as agent for their interests, and that objecting investors like Rev Op Group should not be obligated to pay any share of the exit financing loan. The bankruptcy court rejected these arguments in its Clarification Order and Rev Op Group appealed. ML Manager subsequently filed a notice of its intent to distribute proceeds according to an allocation model and a motion to approve distributions. Rev Op Group objected, but the bankruptcy court issued a Distribution Order overruling the objections and granting ML Manager's motion to approve the distributions. The district court affirmed both orders and Rev Op Group appealed. The court concluded, pursuant to In re Roberts Farms, that Rev Op Group's appeals are moot because it never moved to stay the appealed orders before the bankruptcy court or district courts. Even if the court were to extend its analysis beyond Roberts Farms, Rev Op Group would still not prevail. Any relief the court granted to Rev Op Group would require overturning previous distributions and allocations to third parties not before this court. Further, Rev Op Group's appeals must be dismissed under the four considerations from In re Thorpe Insulation Co. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeals. View "In the Matter of: Mortgages Ltd." on Justia Law

Mortgages Ltd. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and ML Manager subsequently managed and operated the loans left in Mortgages Ltd.'s portfolio. After the bankruptcy court confirmed the bankruptcy plan, ML Manager sought to sell some of the loans in Mortgages Ltd.'s portfolio. Rev Op Group, pass-through investors, objected to the sales. The bankruptcy court ruled that Rev Op Group's denials of allegations in ML Manager's complaint were implausible and held that Rev Op Group investors had executed the agency agreement at issue with ML Manager. The bankruptcy court denied Rev Op Group's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that ML Manager had an agency coupled with an interest and that ML Manager was properly assigned the agency agreements at issue. ML Manager subsequently moved to sell two other properties and the bankruptcy court overruled Rev Op Group's objections, approving the property sales. Rev Op Group appealed and the district court affirmed. The court concluded that the Declaratory Judgment is not equitably moot where Rev Op Group diligently pursued its rights by seeking a stay of the Declaratory Judgment Order, even though it was unable to obtain the stay. Modification of the order would not inequitably affect innocent third parties although substantial consummation of the bankruptcy plan has occurred. The court also concluded that both the bankruptcy and district court erred by effectively resolving factual allegations in Rev Op Group's denials on the merits, instead of reviewing them for legal sufficiency. Accordingly, absent bad faith, the court reversed the bankruptcy court's determination in its Declaratory Judgment that each member of the Rev Op Group had executed the agency agreements, and was to be bound to those agreements. View "In the Matter of: Mortgages Ltd." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, citizens and former residents of Colombia, filed suit in California against two corporations, both headquartered in the United States, for their alleged complicity in the 1998 bombing of a Colombian village by members of the Colombian Air Force (CAF). The district court dismissed all claims under the political question doctrine. The court held that plaintiffs lack a valid claim under either the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), 28 U.S.C. 1350 Note., pursuant to Mohamad v. Palestinan Auth., or the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350, under Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.; the court affirmed the district court's judgment of dismissal with respect to plaintiffs' state-law claims, but did so on the ground of international comity; the district court abused its discretion by applying the incorrect legal standard in its comity analysis when it erroneously concluded that a "true conflict" between domestic and foreign law is required for the application of international comity in all circumstances; and, in light of Mujica IV, the court concluded that the state-law claims before the court are not justiciable under the doctrine of international comity. View "Mujica v. AirScan, Inc." on Justia Law