Articles Posted in Civil Procedure

The Ninth Circuit did not reach the merits of the Tribe's sovereign immunity defense and held, on de novo review, that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in an action brought by the Tribe against the state, seeking a declaration that the Tribe's sovereign immunity barred any lawsuit arising from a particular contract with Washington. The panel held that the Tribe's anticipatory defense to a state court lawsuit did not form a basis for federal jurisdiction. Therefore, the panel vacated the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians v. Washington" on Justia Law

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) governs how to calculate the Federal Arbitration Act's three-month filing deadline. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition to vacate an arbitral award because the petition was filed one day late. The panel clarified how to perform the Rule 6(a) calculation and held that the petition to vacate was untimely. View "Stevens v. Jiffy Lube International" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a shareholder derivative suit on behalf of the Walt Disney Company, holding that plaintiff failed to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1's demand futility requirement. In this case, plaintiff alleged that Disney and its board of directors and several corporate officers participated in a conspiracy to enact illegal anticompetitive agreements between Disney and other animation studios. The panel held that the allegations in plaintiff's amended complaint did not constitute particularized facts demonstrating demand futility. The panel explained that, whether the board's misconduct is characterized as conscious inaction or active connivance, plaintiff needed to demonstrate that a majority of the director defendants knew of the conspiracy, and he failed to do so. View "Towers v. Iger" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order holding the record custodian for various collective entities in contempt for his failure to comply with an order to respond to twelve grand jury subpoenas. The panel held that Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99, 104 (1988), remained good law. The panel further held that the Fifth Amendment provides no protection to a collective entity's records custodians—and that the size of the collective entity and the extent to which a jury would assume that the individual seeking to assert the privilege produced the documents are not relevant. Therefore, the custodian's challenge to the contempt order failed. View "In re Twelve Grand Jury Suboenas" on Justia Law

FDA trans fat regulations governing the contents of the Nutrition Facts Panel did not preempt California's unfair competition laws proscribing false or misleading advertising elsewhere on a food product's label. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of a putative consumer class action alleging that The Kroger Company sold Kroger Bread Crumbs that included misleading labels in violation of California law. The panel held that plaintiff had standing to challenge the legitimacy of defendant's product advertising on the face of the label that it contained "0g Trans Fat per serving." The panel took the occasion to reinforce and apply it's holding in Reid v. Johnson & Johnson,780 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2015), that a requirement to state certain facts in the nutrition label was not a license to make that statement elsewhere on the product. The panel also held that plaintiff's labeling claims were not preempted because the FDA regulations did not authorize the contested statements. View "Hawkins v. The Kroger Co." on Justia Law

Insitu designs and manufactures unmanned aerial systems (drones) and Fidelitad is a value-added reseller of Insitu's drones. Fidelitad filed suit in Washington state against Insitu, alleging that Insitu improperly delayed shipment of its orders, wrongfully terminated a purported distributorship agreement, and then moved into the Latin American market, appropriating Fidelitad's prior groundwork. Insitu removed to the district court under 28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1). The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of Fidelitad's motion to remand and grant of summary judgment to Insitu. The panel held that the motion to remand should have been granted because, even construed in the light most favorable to Insitu, the notice of removal did not establish that Insitu was acting under the direction of a federal officer in its relevant dealings with Fidelitad. Furthermore, the defect was not cured prior to entry of judgment and no party has suggested a basis for subject matter jurisdiction other than section 1442(a)(1). Accordingly, the panel remanded with instructions to remand to state court. View "Fidelitad, Inc. v. Insitu, Inc." on Justia Law

A defendant who travels to Nevada and commits an intentional tort there can be sued in that state, absent circumstances that would make such a suit unreasonable. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of an action alleging that John Schmidt made defamatory statements about Freestream Aircraft (Bermuda) Limited at an aviation industry conference in Nevada. The panel held, under the minimum contacts test and the applicable authority, that there was specific jurisdiction in Nevada. In this case, Nevada's exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendants comported with constitutional due process because all three prongs of the minimum contacts test for specific jurisdiction were satisfied. View "Freestream Aircraft (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Aero Law Group" on Justia Law

A defendant that timely asserts that the district court lacks personal jurisdiction and litigates the issue to an adverse decision from the district court does not waive the personal jurisdiction defense by vigorously litigating defenses to the merits, including by asserting counterclaims against other parties. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment compelling arbitration of contract claims and held that the Bank was entitled to litigate its defenses and counterclaims in a related matter between similar parties without waiving the issue of personal jurisdiction, because the Bank had timely asserted the personal jurisdiction defense and received an adverse ruling (that jurisdiction was proper) from the district court. The panel remanded for dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction. View "InfoSpan, Inc. v. Emirates NBD Bank PSJC" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant and denial of plaintiff's motion to remand in an action alleging violation of a City of San Jose minimum wage ordinance. The district court concluded that plaintiff failed to first exhaust his claim through a required grievance process. The panel held that, whether plaintiff's claims were exhausted or not, the district court was without jurisdiction to hear this case. The panel recognized the strong preemptive force of section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), but held that plaintiff's suit amounted to an interpretive challenge to the San Jose ordinance, not one that required substantial analysis of his union's collective-bargaining agreement. Therefore, the panel remanded for removal to state court and further proceedings. View "McCray v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc." on Justia Law

G&G appealed the district court's order granting summary judgment to defendant, a citizen of Italy, in G&G's suit asserting various state law claims. G&G alleged that Rustic stole a large, valuable oil painting from her former husband and G&G's predecessor-in-interest. The district court held that G&G's claims were barred by California's borrowing statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 361. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order with respect to the conversion claim, holding that the district court properly determined that this claim accrued sometime in 2000 and was time-barred under both the Italian and California statutes of limitations. The panel vacated and remanded the district court's order with respect to the replevin and unjust enrichment claims, holding that there was no indication that the district court determined when those claims accrued. Finally, the panel vacated and remanded the district court's order with respect to the claim for declaratory relief, holding that the disputed facts on this claim defeated summary judgment in favor of defendant. View "G and G Productions LLC v. Rusic" on Justia Law