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

The FDA opened an investigation and sent warning letters to 1-800-GET-THIN and a few surgery centers in California, stating that the FDA believed 1-800-GET-THIN’s LapBand advertising violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq., by not providing relevant risk information regarding the LapBand procedure. The district court subsequently granted the government’s ex parte motion to compel production of attorney-client documents. The court agreed with the Sixth Circuit and concluded that, while in camera review is not necessary to establish a prima facie case that the client was engaged in or planning a criminal or fraudulent scheme when it sought the advice of counsel to further the scheme, a district court must examine the individual documents themselves to determine that the specific attorney-client communications for which production is sought are sufficiently related to and were made in furtherance of the intended, or present, continuing illegality. Accordingly, the court vacated the order compelling production of all subpoenaed documents so the district court may examine the documents in camera to determine which specific documents contain communications in furtherance of the crime fraud exception to the attorney client privilege. View "United States v. Omidi" on Justia Law

CAS appealed the district court's denial of its motion to intervene and unseal documents filed in a putative class action between Chrysler and certain named plaintiffs. In this case, the district court found that the motion for preliminary injunction here was nondispositive, applied the good cause standard to the documents filed under seal, and concluded that good cause existed to keep them from the public’s view. The court held, however, that a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming a strong presumption by meeting the compelling reasons standards where a court may seal records only when it finds compelling reasons and articulates the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture. The court must then conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. When deciding what test to apply, the court sometimes deployed the terms "dispositive" and "non-dispositive." Public access to filed motions and their attachments did not depend on whether the motion was technically “dispositive;” but rather, public access turned on whether the motion was more than tangentially related to the merits of the case. Because the preliminary injunction motion here was more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the court vacated and remanded for the district court to consider the documents under the compelling reasons standard. View "The Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a dispute over interests in mining claims originally owned by Guy Anderson and bequeathed to his six children upon his death. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing all defendants to be joined in a single partition action. In this case, the district court acted well within its discretion in concluding that a single partition action was the most expeditious way of resolving this dispute, and in allowing all defendants to be joined in that action. The court also concluded that the district court did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of Cuprite and ordered partition by sale to Freeport; the district court properly concluded that partition by sale was more appropriate than partition in kind; and accepting the current offer or any better terms that could be had was a reasonable way for the district court to structure the partition sale, and does not violate any terms of the operative statute. Finally, the court concluded that, regardless of whether an Arizona state court would have been required to hold a trial, the district court correctly resolved the summary judgment motion according to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Cuprite Mine Partners v. Anderson" on Justia Law

PRO filed suit against QMC, alleging that QMC's adoption of a closed-facility model was a pretext to prevent PRO physicians from competing with QMC. PRO sought injunctive relief against QMC, arguing that QMC's review and use of patient records violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), 42 U.S.C. 1320d, and the Hawaii Constitution. The district court denied the injunction. In light of Devose v. Herrington, the court held that there must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint. This requires a sufficient nexus between the claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief and the claims set forth in the underlying complaint itself. In this case, PRO’s motion for injunctive relief does not have a relationship or nexus to the underlying complaint. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court properly refused to grant the relief requested. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Pacific Radiation Oncology v. Queen's Med. Ctr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed statutory and constitutional challenges to government surveillance programs. The district court dismissed a Fourth Amendment claim regarding Internet surveillance, on the grounds that plaintiffs lacked standing and that their claim was barred by the state secrets privilege. The district court then certified the issue as final under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The government filed a motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the Rule 54(b) certification was not warranted and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the Fourth Amendment question is intertwined with several other issues that remain pending in district court and because this interlocutory appeal would only prolong final resolution of the case. View "Jewell v. NSA" on Justia Law

Chevron and Transpay dispute a multi-million dollar purchase of a gasoline service station in San Francisco. Chevron argued that the station's $2.375 price constituted a bona fide offer under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), 15 U.S.C. 2802(b)(3)(D)(iii), but Transbay rejected this argument and urged the court to preserve the jury verdict awarding it almost half a million dollars as compensation for overpayment. At issue was whether the district court erred in excluding at trial a third-party appraisal of the property that valued it significantly higher than either of the appraisals commissioned by the parties. The court used the possession plus test and held that when a party acts in conformity with the contents of a document - e.g., by giving an independent appraisal to a lender in support of accomplishing its objective to secure a commercial loan - such an action constitutes an adoption of the statements contained under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B) even if the party never reviewed the document’s contents; such an action constitutes an adoption even if the third-party never itself uses or relies on the document; and where, however, a party forwards a document while acting as a mere messenger, this does not constitute an adoption. In this case, the PSG Appraisal - the only third-party appraisal available - values the property higher than any other appraisal and remarkably higher than any other going concern appraisal. Because the court cannot say with any degree of confidence that had the jury been presented with the PSG Appraisal, it would have come to the same conclusion, the court concluded that the evidentiary error merits a new trial. Accordingly, the court reversed, vacated, and remanded. View "Transbay Auto Serv. v. Chevron" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint and the subsequent denial of his motion to reconsider that dismissal. At issue was whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) required plaintiff, who filed his First Amended Complaint with consent of the opposing party, to seek leave of court before filing his Second Amended Complaint. The court found that Rule 15(a) does not impose any such timing mechanism and therefore held that plaintiff was permitted to file his Second Amended Complaint “as a matter of course,” without seeking leave of court. Because the timely filed Second Amended Complaint mooted the motion to dismiss, the court reversed the district court’s grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss the superseded First Amended Complaint and the resulting dismissal of plaintiff’s case. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino" on Justia Law

The Union seeks enforcement of a subpoena duces tecum it served on Fresh & Easy before a hearing before the Board. The Board issued the subpoena at the Union’s request in connection with charges that Fresh & Easy engaged in unfair labor practices by stifling union activity. Fresh & Easy contends that it missed the filing deadline because the Union did not serve Fresh & Easy’s counsel of record with a copy of the subpoena where only the party was served. The district court held that the subpoena was properly served and ordered Fresh & Easy to comply with the Union’s requests. The court concluded that, in neglecting to serve the subpoena on Fresh & Easy’s counsel of record, the Union failed to meet its procedural obligations. Although the Union was obliged to serve the subpoena on Fresh & Easy’s counsel of record, the court agreed with the Board’s conclusion that “failure to serve counsel does not constitute grounds for revoking a subpoena, absent a showing of prejudice.” In this case, Fresh & Easy cannot credibly claim prejudice where counsel never filed a petition to revoke the subpoena. The court's finding that Fresh & Easy was not prejudiced precludes consideration of the merits-based challenges to the subpoena’s validity, as the Board did not consider those claims. Accordingly, the court upheld the district court's enforcement order. View "NLRB v. Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Mkt." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, owners of a rare coin known as a "Brasher Doubloon," alleging claims for quantum meruit, fraud, breach of contract, constructive trust, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Plaintiff offered to sell defendants information that would prove that their coin was the first legal-tender coin struck pursuant to an Act of Congress. After plaintiff gave defendants the information, defendants denied payment. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. The court concluded that the Coin was not, as plaintiff theorized, legal tender struck pursuant to the Act Regulating Foreign Coins, and For Other Purposes, ch. 5. 1 Stat. 300. Plaintiff could not recover because he had not provided the information he alleged he was required to provide pursuant to the parties’ agreement. Further, the court concluded that plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) because he failed to identify what specific facts a deposition of Defendant Contursi would have revealed that would have precluded summary judgment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Swoger v. Rare Coins Wholesalers" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Lieutenant with the Corrections Department, filed suit alleging violations of both 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the California Whistleblower Protection Act, California Government Code 8547, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding that plaintiff was collaterally estopped from relitigating the whistleblower retaliation issue because it had been litigated during the State Personnel Board proceedings. The court reversed because, pursuant to State Board of Chiropractic Examiners v. Superior Court, the State Personnel Board’s decision does not have preclusive effect under theories of res judicata and collateral estoppel and thus does not prevent plaintiff from litigating his whistleblower retaliation damages claim in the district court. View "Wabakken v. CA Dep't of Corr. & Rehab." on Justia Law