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

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for violating 18 U.S.C. 1521, for filing, attempting to file, or conspiring to file a false document of the sort regularly used to create liens or encumbrances against the real or personal property of a United States officer or employee. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that defendant knowingly attempted to file false documents, intending to harass the USP-Atwater employees, and Congress enacted section 1521 precisely to prevent this type of conduct; the district court did not commit plain error in failing to hold a competency hearing sua sponte before allowing defendant to represent himself at all stages of the proceedings; the district court's application of a two level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2A6.1(b)(2)(B) for multiple liens against multiple victims was not clearly erroneous; the district court did not plainly err in applying multiple sentencing enhancements; and the district court did not plainly err in imposing defendant's sentence, despite his presentence report incorrectly listing the lengths of his previous sentences. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Neal" on Justia Law

Defendant, convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government, argues that there is insufficient evidence to convict him, the district court failed to give jury instructions for entrapment by estoppel, and the district court failed to give instructions concerning a buyer-seller relationship. The court held that regulating the registration and transfer of firearms is a lawful function of the government; in this case, defendant and his co-conspirators agreed to submit, and did submit, machine gun registration and transfer forms with false information to the ATF, thereby impairing and obstructing the ATF's lawful government function of regulating the transfer of firearms; the district court did not err in declining to give the requested jury instructions because the lack of an authorized government official precludes entrapment by estoppel; and there was sufficient evidence of a conspiracy to obstruct a lawful function of the government to eliminate the possibility of a simple buyer-seller transaction. The court affirmed the conviction. The court addressed defendant's and co-defendant's remaining claims in two memorandum dispositions filed concurrently with this opinion. View "United States v. Rodman" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), against Knight, alleging that Knight misclassified them as independent contractors and asserting other labor law violations. Knight removed to federal court, but the district court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court. The district court concluded that Knight did not meet its burden of proof to establish the amount in controversy because all of Knight's calculations relied on a flawed assumption that all drivers worked 50 weeks a year. The court held in Ibarra v. Manheim Investments, Inc., filed simultaneously with this opinion, that when the defendant relies on a chain of reasoning that includes assumptions to satisfy its burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, the chain of reasoning and its underlying assumptions must be reasonable. Applying Ibarra, the court concluded that because defendants relied on a reasonable chain of logic and presented sufficient evidence to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, defendants have met their burden of proof. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "LaCross v. Knight Transportation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against his former employer, Manheim, alleging violations of the California Labor Code. Manheim removed the case to federal court and the district court remanded to state court, concluding that Manheim's proof of the $5 million amount in controversy requirement was inadequate. At issue was what a defendant seeking removal must produce to prove the amount-in-controversy requirement under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), when the complaint does not include a facially apparent amount in controversy or the plaintiff may have understated the true amount in controversy. The court concluded that when " a defendant's assertion of the amount in controversy is challenged... both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied." A damages assessment may require a chain of reasoning that includes assumptions and such assumptions must be based on reasonable ground. Because the complaint does not allege that Manheim universally, on each and every shift, violates labor laws by not giving rest and meal breaks, Manheim bears the burden to show that its estimated amount in controversy relied on reasonable assumptions. A remand is necessary to allow both sides to submit evidence related to the contested amount in controversy. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ibarra v. Manheim Investment, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a pro se California prisoner, filed suit against defendants alleging violations of her constitutional rights to due process of law and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff alleged that prison officials started rumors that she was a convicted sex offender and changed her prison records. As a result, gang members threatened plaintiff and, when plaintiff reported the problem, prison officials refused to file her grievance and rejected her appeal. The court concluded that, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), a court of appeals may require a three strike prisoner seeking in forma pauperis status to show an imminent danger at the time the notice of appeal is filed; the Andrews v. Cervantes standard is the appropriate one to be applied in determining whether a prisoner has shown an imminent danger on appeal, and that applying that standard to plaintiff’s case, she may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal; and the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants on the issue of exhaustion because defendants have not met their burden of establishing that defendant did not exhaust available administrative remedies. Accordingly, the court granted plaintiff's right to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The court vacated the order of the district court and remanded for further proceedings on the issue of exhaustion. View "Williams v. Paramo" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against EA, alleging that Madden NFL, a series of video games, includes accurate likenesses of plaintiffs without authorization, as well as roughly 6,000 other former NFL players who appear on more than 100 historic teams in various editions of Madden NFL. EA moved to strike the complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion where EA has not shown a probability of prevailing on its incidental use defense and its other defenses are effectively precluded by the court's decision in Keller v. Elec. Arts. In this case, EA has not shown that the transformative use defense applies to plaintiffs' claims; EA has not established a probability of prevailing on either the common law public interest defense or the "public affairs" exemption of California Civil Code 3344(d); the Rogers v. Grimaldi test does not apply to plaintiffs' right-of-publicity claims; and EA has not established a probability of prevailing on its incidental use defense. View "Davis v. Electronic Arts" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed a special condition of supervised release prohibiting him from possessing depictions of "sexually explicit conduct" involving children or adults and from patronizing any place where such depictions are available. The court agreed with the district court that the condition is generally necessary to achieve the goals of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3583. However, the court concluded that the record does not support the restriction of defendant's access to non-pornographic depictions of adults where that speech is protected by the First Amendment. The court affirmed the judgment, construing the condition not to apply to such materials. View "United States v. Gnirke" on Justia Law