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

Mano appealed the district court's holding, under 11 U.S.C. 550, that Mano was the initial transferee of $311,065.25 paid by debtor in connection with the sale of a six-acre shopping plaza in Raymondville, Texas. Applying the proper standard in the In re Incomnet dominion test, the court concluded that the district court did not err in determining that Mano was the initial transferee of the disputed funds and in declining to address Mano's alternative argument because it was waived. The court held that In re Presidential is no longer good law in this Circuit insofar as it conflicts with the pure dominion test articulated in In re Incomnet. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "MANO-Y&M, Ltd. v. Field" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the City, alleging claims of discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to demonstrate any pretext for discrimination based on his hearing impairment and his EEOC complaint where plaintiff presented no evidence that the City's reliance on past threats was actually pretext for discrimination and, even if the fit-for-duty evaluation somehow undermined the credibility of the City's stated concern about plaintiff's threats, the City put forward other reasons for terminating him: nonperformance of duties, conducting personal business at work, and making disparaging remarks about his supervisors and the City. Likewise, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because he cannot show pretext. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the City. View "Curley v. City of North Las Vegas" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the EPA's Administrator under the Clean Air Act's (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7604, citizen-suit provision, seeking an order that would force the Administrator to issue revised regulations governing ozone pollution. Plaintiffs claimed that the Administrator has a nondiscretionary duty to issue revised ozone regulations under section 166(a) of the CCA. The court held that, when a plaintiff sues the Administrator for failure to perform any act or duty under this chapter which is not discretionary with the Administrator, the nondiscretionary nature of the duty must be clear-cut - that is, readily ascertainable from the statute allegedly giving rise to the duty. Given section 166(a)'s ambiguity, the court could not say that the existence of a nondiscretionary duty to promulgate revised Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations for ozone is clear-cut or readily ascertainable from the statute. This is enough to preclude plaintiffs' reliance on section 7604(a)(2) as the jurisdictional basis for their suit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claims. View "WildEarth Guardians v. McCarthy" on Justia Law