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

A federal inmate, Mitchell Garraway, filed a Bivens action against three prison officials, alleging they were deliberately indifferent to his safety, violating his Eighth Amendment rights. Garraway claimed that despite informing the officials of his cellmate's violent behavior and requesting a cell change, they refused, resulting in an assault by his cellmate. The officials moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing no Bivens remedy exists for failure to protect an inmate from prisoner violence. The district court denied this motion, and after the Supreme Court's decision in Egbert v. Boule, the officials sought reconsideration, which was also denied. They then filed an interlocutory appeal.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California initially denied the officials' motion for judgment on the pleadings, agreeing with Garraway that his case did not differ meaningfully from Farmer v. Brennan. After the Supreme Court's decision in Egbert, the officials filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied by the district court, reaffirming that Farmer remained intact post-Egbert. The officials then filed an interlocutory appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and dismissed the interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that district court orders extending Bivens, absent a denial of qualified immunity, are not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. The court emphasized that delaying review of such orders does not threaten significant public interests and that any improper judicial intrusion into the legislative function can be effectively rectified upon review of a final judgment. The court concluded that the next logical step in the litigation would be for the federal-officer defendant to claim qualified immunity, the denial of which would be immediately appealable. View "GARRAWAY V. CIUFO" on Justia Law

Catherine Berry sued her employer, Air Force Central Welfare Fund, and its insurer, Air Force Insurance Fund, to enforce administrative default orders for disability benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. After Berry filed her lawsuit, the defendants voluntarily paid her the full amount owed, including penalties and interest. Berry then sought attorneys’ fees under 33 U.S.C. § 928(a), arguing that her case was not moot due to her pending fee request.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied Berry’s motion for attorneys’ fees and dismissed her complaint as moot. The court held that Berry did not “successfully prosecute” her claim under § 928(a) because the defendants’ voluntary payment mooted the case, and Berry obtained no judicially sanctioned relief. Berry appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that Berry’s claim was moot because she received the full amount owed and sought no other compensation. The court also rejected Berry’s argument that her lawsuit was the catalyst for the defendants’ payment, stating that the catalyst theory is unavailable under § 928(a). The court concluded that Berry did not “successfully prosecute” her claim in the district court, as she obtained no judicially sanctioned relief. Therefore, Berry was not entitled to attorneys’ fees under § 928(a). The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case as moot. View "BERRY V. AIR FORCE CENTRAL WELFARE FUND" on Justia Law

The case involves Kimberly Marroquin, who sued Los Angeles Police Officer DiMaggio Rico and the City of Los Angeles under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force and negligence after being injured by a less-lethal projectile during a crowd control situation following a Lakers game. Marroquin claimed that the injury caused her substantial physical and emotional harm. The jury found in favor of Marroquin on her excessive force and negligence claims but awarded inconsistent damages: $1.00 against Officer Rico and $1,500,000.00 against the City.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted a new trial limited to damages under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(A), citing a miscarriage of justice due to the jury's improper apportionment of damages. The court also denied the defendants' motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), which was based on newly discovered surveillance footage. The court found that the defendants failed to show reasonable diligence in discovering this evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's post-trial orders. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial limited to damages, rejecting the defendants' argument that the liability and damages issues were so interwoven that a damages-only trial violated their Seventh Amendment rights. The court found that the liability issues were distinct and separable from the damages issues and that the jury's confusion was likely due to an improper instruction on the verdict form.The Ninth Circuit also upheld the district court's denial of the Rule 60(b)(2) motion, agreeing that there is no exception to the requirement of reasonable diligence, even if the newly discovered evidence is conclusive. The court affirmed the district court's decisions, maintaining the new trial limited to damages and the denial of relief from judgment based on the newly discovered evidence. View "MARROQUIN V. CITY OF LOS ANGELES" on Justia Law

Victor Meza-Carmona, born in Mexico to a U.S. citizen mother, Victoria, claimed U.S. citizenship based on his mother's status. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1409(c) (1952), Victoria could transmit citizenship to him only if she had been physically present in the U.S. for a continuous period of one year before his birth. Victoria was born in Los Angeles and baptized in El Paso, Texas, but later moved to Mexico. The case hinges on whether Victoria met the continuous physical presence requirement.The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against Meza-Carmona in 2012. An immigration judge ordered his removal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissed his appeal. Meza-Carmona then petitioned for review. The Ninth Circuit transferred the case to the District of Arizona to resolve factual disputes about his citizenship claim. The district court found that Meza-Carmona failed to prove his mother's continuous physical presence in the U.S. for one year before his birth.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's findings. The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1409(c) requires a person claiming citizenship to show that their mother stayed in the U.S. for one year without leaving. The Ninth Circuit found that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Meza-Carmona failed to establish his mother's continuous presence. The evidence allowed for either inference—that Victoria stayed continuously in the U.S. or that she did not. Given the record, the district court's conclusion was not clear error. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit denied Meza-Carmona's petition for review. View "MEZA-CARMONA V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, parents of Idaho school children, sought reimbursement for fees associated with educational and extracurricular activities within Idaho public school districts. They argued that these fees were improperly assessed because the Idaho Constitution mandates "free common schools," and that the payment of such fees constituted a taking of property without due process, violating the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho initially denied the school districts' motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiffs had a property interest in a free education under the Idaho Constitution. However, the case was later reassigned to a different district judge, who revisited the issue. The second district judge granted summary judgment in favor of the school districts, concluding that the plaintiffs did not possess a property right protected by the Takings Clause because the right to a free public education in Idaho does not constitute a vested private property interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment. The court held that the Idaho Constitution does not create a vested private property interest in specific educational benefits. It determined that public education in Idaho lacks the essential characteristics of private property, such as the right to possess, use, dispose of, or sell. Therefore, money paid to satisfy fees related to supplemental educational services is not subject to a Takings Clause claim. The court also clarified that a second district judge should not reconsider a prior judge's ruling unless specific conditions are met, but found any procedural error in this case to be harmless. View "Zeyen v. Bonneville Joint District" on Justia Law

In February 2016, two Seattle police officers, Scott Miller and Michael Spaulding, fatally shot Che Andre Taylor during an attempted arrest. Kshama Sawant, a Seattle City Council member, publicly referred to the incident as a "blatant murder" and later reiterated that Taylor was "murdered by the police." Following an inquest, prosecutors declined to file charges against the officers due to insufficient evidence of malice. Miller and Spaulding subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging defamation and outrage under state law, as well as a federal defamation claim against Sawant.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the federal defamation claim but retained jurisdiction over the state law claims. The court later granted Sawant's motion for summary judgment on the state law claims and awarded her expert witness deposition expenses, including fees for preparation time. Miller and Spaulding appealed the decision, challenging the award of expert witness fees and the admissibility of the expert's opinions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 allows for the recovery of reasonable expenses for time an expert witness spends preparing for a deposition. The court joined other circuits in concluding that such preparation fees are recoverable under Rule 26. The court found that the expert witness deposition preparation fees awarded to Sawant were reasonable and did not result in manifest injustice. The Ninth Circuit also noted that objections to the admissibility of the expert's opinions did not negate the obligation to pay a reasonable fee under Rule 26. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and the award of expert witness deposition expenses. View "Miller v. Sawant" on Justia Law

Michael Mayes filed a complaint against American Hallmark Insurance Company in state court. American Hallmark received a copy of the complaint and removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction before being formally served. Mayes moved to remand the case, arguing that removal was improper because American Hallmark had not yet been formally served.A magistrate judge concluded that 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) does not require formal service before removal and recommended denying the motion to remand. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon reviewed the issue de novo and agreed with the magistrate judge’s interpretation, denying Mayes’ motion to remand.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), a defendant may remove a state-court civil action once it receives a copy of the complaint, without waiting for formal service. The court clarified that the statute sets a deadline for removal but does not establish a "window" that prohibits removal before formal service. The court also noted that the statutory context and precedent from other circuit courts support this interpretation. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Mayes' motion to remand. View "Mayes v. American Hallmark Insurance Co." on Justia Law

An attorney, Jeffrey Cogan, filed a federal lawsuit challenging an Arizona state court judgment against him for malicious prosecution. The state court judgment arose from Cogan's actions during a federal bankruptcy proceeding involving Arnaldo Trabucco. Cogan sought a declaration that the state court lacked jurisdiction over the malicious prosecution claim because it involved conduct exclusively within federal jurisdiction.The Arizona state court had granted partial summary judgment against Cogan, finding him liable for malicious prosecution and awarding $8 million in damages. Cogan appealed, and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the liability finding but vacated the damages award, remanding for a new trial on damages. Cogan then filed the federal lawsuit before the retrial, arguing that the state court lacked jurisdiction. The district court dismissed Cogan's federal complaint under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars federal courts from reviewing state court judgments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply because the malicious prosecution claim was completely preempted by federal law, falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. The court reasoned that state courts lack jurisdiction over malicious prosecution claims arising from federal bankruptcy proceedings, as established in MSR Exploration, Ltd. v. Meridian Oil, Inc. Therefore, the state court judgment was subject to collateral attack in federal court.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Cogan's challenge to the state court judgment to proceed in federal court. View "COGAN V. TRABUCCO" on Justia Law

The case involves a class action lawsuit against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) for racially profiling Latino drivers and passengers under the guise of immigration enforcement. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court issued a permanent injunction in 2013, followed by a supplemental injunction appointing an independent monitor to oversee MCSO’s compliance. In 2016, a second supplemental injunction required MCSO to reform its internal misconduct investigation procedures. In 2022, a third supplemental injunction found the Sheriff in contempt for non-compliance and set forth curative measures, including creating a Constitutional Policing Authority (CPA) and assigning its duties to the Monitor.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona initially issued the permanent injunction and subsequent supplemental injunctions. The court found MCSO in contempt for failing to comply with the injunctions and ordered additional remedial measures. The district court relied on its inherent equitable powers rather than Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53 in issuing these orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court’s amended third supplemental permanent injunction. It held that the district court acted within its inherent equitable powers in assigning the CPA’s duties to the Monitor. The court rejected the Sheriff’s contention that this assignment violated Article III of the Constitution and separation of powers principles. It also found that the First Order provided adequate judicial review of the Monitor’s actions and that the Third Order did not contravene Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65’s specificity requirement. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court’s actions were appropriate and affirmed the Third Order. View "MELENDRES V. SKINNER" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, representing a class of drivers whose cars were totaled in accidents, alleged that their insurers, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, failed to pay the actual cash value of their vehicles. They contended that State Farm applied two unlawful discounts: a negotiation discount, which reduced the value based on typical buyer negotiations, and a condition discount, which adjusted for the car's condition compared to similar vehicles.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington initially certified two classes: a negotiation class and a condition class. However, following the Ninth Circuit's decision in Lara v. First National Insurance Company of America, the district court decertified both classes and granted summary judgment in favor of State Farm, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate injury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's decertification of the negotiation class, holding that plaintiffs could prove injury on a class-wide basis by adding back the unlawful negotiation adjustment to determine the value each class member should have received. However, the court affirmed the decertification of the condition class, as determining injury required an individualized comparison of the unlawful condition adjustment and a hypothetical lawful adjustment.The Ninth Circuit also vacated the district court's summary judgment against the named plaintiffs, remanding the case for the district court to reassess whether the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence of injury. The court clarified that plaintiffs could rely on the Autosource reports, minus the unlawful adjustments, as relevant evidence of injury. The court rejected State Farm's argument that Article III standing was a barrier to the plaintiffs' suit, affirming that the plaintiffs' claim of receiving less than owed under their insurance policies constituted a concrete injury. View "JAMA V. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY" on Justia Law