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

Two college football players began their collegiate athletic careers at junior colleges in 2019 before transferring to NCAA Division I institutions. Both completed the maximum five years of collegiate eligibility allowed by the NCAA’s “Five-Year Rule,” which includes time spent at any full-time collegiate institution, including junior colleges. In 2025, each player sought a preliminary injunction in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, arguing that the NCAA’s five-year limitation on eligibility was anticompetitive under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and seeking to play an additional, sixth year of college football. The players also challenged the NCAA’s “Rule of Restitution,” which allows the NCAA to penalize member schools that permit ineligible athletes to compete pursuant to court orders later vacated or reversed.Both district courts granted the plaintiffs’ requests for preliminary injunctions, permitting them to play in the 2025 college football season. After the season concluded, the NCAA appealed the injunctions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeals as moot because the 2025 season was over and their collegiate eligibility had ended.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the appeals were moot, as the injunctions had expired and the players’ collegiate careers were over, making it impossible to provide any effective relief to the NCAA. The court further determined that the NCAA did not meet its burden to show that the case fit the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to mootness, because there was no reasonable expectation that these plaintiffs would again be subject to the same NCAA actions. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the NCAA’s appeals as moot and vacated the district courts’ orders. View "BRAHAM V. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION" on Justia Law

A college baseball player challenged the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s rule that limits athletes to four seasons of eligibility within five years of their initial college enrollment. After exhausting his five years of eligibility through a series of transfers between NCAA and non-NCAA institutions, including one school that closed during his attendance, the athlete sought a waiver to compete in an additional season at a Division I university. The request for a waiver was denied by both the conference and the NCAA.The athlete filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging that the Five-Year Rule violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act and sought a preliminary injunction to allow him to play during the pending litigation. The district court granted the injunction, concluding that the NCAA’s rule was a commercial restraint subject to antitrust scrutiny and that the athlete was likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that, consistent with recent decisions from other circuits and in light of NCAA v. Alston, the Five-Year Rule is indeed a commercial restraint subject to review under the Sherman Act. However, the Ninth Circuit determined that the district court abused its discretion by finding a likelihood of success on the merits. The appellate court found the evidentiary support for the athlete’s antitrust claim to be insufficient, particularly regarding the definition of the relevant market and the demonstration of substantial anticompetitive effects. As a result, the Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction, holding that the athlete failed to meet his burden to show a likelihood of success on the merits of his antitrust claim. View "BLYTHE V. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION" on Justia Law

A real estate investment trust issued shares governed by corporate charter documents that initially paid fixed dividends but were set to convert to floating rates tied to the London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR). The charter provided three fallback options if LIBOR became unavailable. When LIBOR was discontinued, the company determined that the third fallback provision—a fixed rate based on the most recent dividend period—would apply. This decision was announced before the shares were set to convert to floating rates, leading to a decrease in the shares' market value.A shareholder filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the company’s failure to convert to SOFR-based floating rates, as selected by the Federal Reserve under the Adjustable Interest Rate (LIBOR) Act, violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The shareholder claimed that a fixed rate could not serve as a valid “benchmark replacement” under the LIBOR Act. The company moved to dismiss, arguing that the fallback provision was a valid benchmark replacement, thus precluding a UCL claim. The district court denied the motion, finding ambiguity in the statute and relying on legislative history suggesting concern over fixed-rate conversions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s order. The Ninth Circuit held that, under the plain text of the LIBOR Act, a “benchmark replacement” may include a fixed dividend rate as provided in the fallback provision, and there is no requirement that it be a floating rate. The court found the fallback provision to be a valid benchmark replacement and concluded that the company’s actions were not “unlawful” or “unfair” under the UCL. The case was remanded for further proceedings on any remaining issues. View "VERTHELYI V. PENNYMAC MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST" on Justia Law

ThermoLife International, LLC and Muscle Beach Nutrition, LLC, companies involved in the distribution and licensing of dietary supplement ingredients, pursued false advertising and related claims under the Lanham Act against BPI Sports, LLC, a competitor in the sports nutrition market. ThermoLife had initiated an action against BPI in the District of Arizona in 2018, which was one of several similar lawsuits it filed against different distributors alleging nearly identical claims. These lawsuits were consistently dismissed for failure to allege competitive or commercial injury. Despite these outcomes, ThermoLife continued to assert similar claims against BPI, including filing a new action in the Southern District of Florida after voluntarily dismissing the Arizona case.Following the voluntary dismissal in Arizona and the subsequent refiling in Florida, the Florida court transferred the new case back to Arizona at BPI’s request. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona then dismissed ThermoLife’s claims with prejudice for the same deficiencies previously identified. ThermoLife appealed, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on the merits, finding a lack of direct competition and competitive injury.After prevailing, BPI sought attorney’s fees for both the 2018 and 2020 litigations. The United States District Court for the District of Arizona awarded BPI attorney’s fees, finding the case “exceptional” under the Lanham Act due to ThermoLife’s pattern of vexatious litigation and forum shopping. The court also awarded attorney’s fees as “costs” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d), reasoning that the Lanham Act allows such awards. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed both the exceptional case finding and the availability of attorney’s fees under Rule 41(d) when the underlying statute provides for such fees, but remanded solely to correct a computational error in the fee calculation. View "THERMOLIFE INTERNATIONAL, LLC V. BPI SPORTS, LLC" on Justia Law

A company that services and repairs surgical instruments entered into an arrangement to reset the use counters on certain robotic surgical instrument components, allowing hospitals to reuse these components beyond the manufacturer’s programmed limits. The manufacturer of the surgical robots and the associated instruments, which holds more than 99% of the market for the robots and 100% of the market for the instruments, responded by warning hospitals that the use of unauthorized repairs would violate their agreements and that such use could result in the manufacturer refusing service calls. Following these warnings, all hospitals ceased using the servicer’s offerings.The servicer filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the manufacturer engaged in unlawful tying, exclusive dealing, monopolization, and attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act. The dispute at trial centered on the proper standard for defining a relevant antitrust market. The district court instructed the jury that the servicer was required to prove the so-called “Kodak/Epic factors” to establish the existence of a single-brand aftermarket. The servicer conceded it had not presented evidence on these factors and stipulated to judgment in favor of the manufacturer.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed whether the district court erred in requiring proof of the Kodak/Epic factors. The Ninth Circuit held that these factors apply only when a plaintiff cannot show the defendant possesses market power in the foremarket and instead relies solely on aftermarket power. Because the servicer presented evidence that the manufacturer had near-total market power in both the foremarket (surgical robots) and the aftermarket (robotic instruments), proof of the Kodak/Epic factors was not required. The court further held that there was sufficient evidence supporting the servicer’s claims and reversed the district court’s judgment, remanding for further proceedings. View "SURGICAL INSTRUMENT SERVICE COMPANY, INC. V. INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC." on Justia Law

Two competing companies in the athleticwear market, both producing bioceramic materials embedded in textiles, became involved in litigation over allegedly false advertising. One company, after settling the initial lawsuit by agreeing to pay $2.5 million and refrain from claiming FDA approval or health benefits for its product, filed for bankruptcy before completing the settlement payments. The plaintiff then brought a new action against the CEO of the defendant company, alleging both tortious interference with the settlement agreement and false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, asserting that the defendant continued to falsely represent the product's health benefits and FDA approval.The United States District Court for the Central District of California presided over a jury trial. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff on the Lanham Act claim and awarded nominal damages. On post-trial motions, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law for the plaintiff on the tortious interference claim, awarded $2.5 million in damages, and further awarded the plaintiff disgorgement of the CEO’s salary (trebled) as "profits" under the Lanham Act, in addition to nearly $600,000 in attorneys’ fees.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings. The Ninth Circuit held that, under California law, a corporate officer acting within the scope of agency and not at the expense of the corporation is immune from tortious interference claims, and reversed the district court’s denial of immunity and its tortious interference damages award. The court also reversed the district court’s disgorgement award, concluding that the CEO’s salary was not equivalent to profits under the Lanham Act. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the award of attorneys’ fees, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s determination that the case was “exceptional.” The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "MULTIPLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES, LLC V. CASDEN" on Justia Law

Two investment entities entered into an agreement to sell a significant number of shares of a company to a purchaser. The seller was represented by a law firm as administrative agent and a broker as placement agent. Before the purchaser paid for the shares, it placed the transaction on hold. Despite this, the shares were mistakenly transferred to the purchaser. Multiple parties, including the administrative agent and broker, communicated about the error, and assurances were made that the transfer would be reversed. However, the reversal did not occur, and years later, the purchaser executed documents asserting ownership of the shares, which had notably increased in value. After demands for the return of the shares went unmet, the sellers filed suit. The shares were eventually returned, but their value had dropped.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California addressed claims brought by the sellers against the purchaser for conversion, among other causes of action. The purchaser, in turn, filed a third-party complaint seeking equitable indemnity and statutory contribution from the administrative agent and broker, alleging negligence in their handling of the transaction. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the third-party defendants on the equitable indemnity claim, reasoning that conversion is an intentional tort for which equitable indemnity is unavailable. The sellers and purchaser settled their claims, but the purchaser appealed the indemnity ruling.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. It held that, under California law, conversion is a strict liability tort, not an intentional tort requiring wrongful intent. Accordingly, a party liable for conversion may seek partial equitable indemnity from negligent joint tortfeasors. The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment for the third-party defendants and remanded for further proceedings. View "SERENITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, ET AL. V. SUN HUNG KAI STRATEGIC CAPITAL, LTD." on Justia Law

The case concerns the process for selecting a lead plaintiff in a securities fraud class action brought under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). After investors filed federal securities claims against a company and its executives, several parties moved to be appointed as lead plaintiff, including Crain Walnut Shelling, LP. Crain Walnut reported the largest financial losses among the movants and made a prima facie showing of adequacy and typicality, initially making it the presumptive lead plaintiff. However, a competing movant, Universal, challenged Crain Walnut’s adequacy, raising concerns about inaccuracies in Crain Walnut’s filings and inconsistent representations about its ownership and organizational structure. During discovery, further issues arose when Crain Walnut’s representative gave problematic deposition testimony, indicating an unwillingness to comply with potential discovery obligations.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California evaluated these challenges. After initial proceedings and discovery, the district court concluded that the evidence raised doubts about Crain Walnut’s adequacy but initially applied a “genuine and serious doubt” standard. Ultimately, Universal was appointed as lead plaintiff after the district court found that Crain Walnut’s adequacy was rebutted based on the evidence.Crain Walnut then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for a writ of mandamus to vacate the district court’s orders. The Ninth Circuit clarified that the correct standard for rebutting the PSLRA’s presumption of adequacy is the preponderance of the evidence, not a lower standard. The appellate court held that, even under the correct standard, the district court did not commit clear error in finding Crain Walnut inadequate, and thus mandamus relief was not warranted. The court therefore denied the petition for writ of mandamus. View "CRAIN WALNUT SHELLING, LP V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA" on Justia Law

Shahriyar Bolandian was convicted of insider trading based on allegations that he traded on nonpublic information regarding the mergers of two companies, information allegedly obtained from a friend, Ashish Aggarwal, who worked at J.P. Morgan. Bolandian executed trades in the stocks of PLX Technologies and ExactTarget before their respective acquisitions, ultimately earning substantial profits. These trades occurred while Aggarwal, though not assigned to the deals, worked in the relevant banking group. The case revolved around whether Aggarwal had improperly shared confidential information, and whether Bolandian knowingly traded on it.Initially, the United States District Court for the Central District of California severed Aggarwal’s trial from that of Bolandian and another co-defendant, Sadigh, due to the risk of antagonistic defenses. Aggarwal was ultimately acquitted by a jury. Afterward, a superseding indictment charged only Bolandian and Sadigh, and eventually Bolandian alone proceeded to trial. During Bolandian’s trial, a juror (Juror No. 6) expressed uncertainty about his ability to be impartial due to a family connection to J.P. Morgan. The district court questioned Juror No. 6 briefly, but allowed him to remain on the jury after both parties did not object.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed Bolandian’s conviction and focused on the issue of juror bias. The court held that the district court failed in its independent duty to investigate credible allegations of juror bias after Juror No. 6 expressed doubt about his impartiality. The panel concluded that defense counsel’s agreement to keep Juror No. 6 did not waive Bolandian’s right to challenge for bias, as a proper investigation is a prerequisite to waiver. The Ninth Circuit found plain error, vacated Bolandian’s conviction, and remanded for a new trial. View "USA V. BOLANDIAN" on Justia Law

An Iranian citizen, living in the United States, held a credit card account with a large financial institution. Due to United States sanctions against Iran, federal regulations prohibit U.S. banks from providing services to accounts of individuals ordinarily resident in Iran, unless those individuals are not located in Iran. The bank had a compliance policy requiring account holders from such sanctioned countries to regularly provide documents showing they were not residing in those countries. The plaintiff, subject to this policy, submitted various documents as proof of U.S. residency. After the bank mistakenly treated one of his residency documents as temporary rather than permanent, it closed his account when he failed to submit additional documentation.The plaintiff sued in state court, alleging violations of federal and state anti-discrimination and consumer protection statutes, including 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. The defendant bank removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The district court granted summary judgment for the bank on all claims except for an ECOA notice claim and a related UCL claim, both of which the plaintiff later voluntarily dismissed. The plaintiff then appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act’s liability shield provision immunizes the bank from liability for good faith actions taken in connection with compliance with sanctions regulations, even if such actions are not strictly compelled by the regulations. The court found that the bank’s policy was consistent with federal guidance and that the plaintiff failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the bank’s good faith. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the bank. View "NIA V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A." on Justia Law