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

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that defendants violated the automatic-stay provision of 11 U.S.C. 362(a). The court held that an attorney preparing an order for a judge is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. The court did not reach the question of whether such an action violated the automatic stay, or whether it was actionable under 11 U.S.C. 362(k). View "Burton v. Infinity Capital Management" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against Coverall, a janitorial franchising company, alleging that Coverall misclassified its California franchises as independent contractors and that Coverall breached its franchise agreements. After the parties settled, a sole objector filed an objection to the proposed settlement. The court concluded that the objector presented no evidence that the district court abused its discretion in declining further adjustment from the lodestar amount; the district court acted within its proper discretion when it found that the settlement contained significant benefits for plaintiffs beyond the cash recovery, and that the award, at about the third of the lodestar amount, was reasonable; the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Churchill Vill., L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec. factors supported the conclusion that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate; the district court has no obligation to make explicit monetary valuations of injunctive remedies; the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement term that objectors be available for depositions; and the district court did not abuse its discretion when it approved the settlement agreement consistent with the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1715(b), notice requirement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's approval of the proposed class action settlement under Rule 23 and the award of attorneys' fees to the attorneys of the proposed class. View "Laguna v. Coverall North America" on Justia Law

Pyramid Tech filed suit against its insurer, alleging express breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith. Without holding a Daubert hearing, the district court excluded Pyramid Tech's expert witnesses and granted summary judgment to the insurer, finding insufficient evidence that a flood caused damage to Pyramid Tech's property. The court held that, after an expert establishes admissibility to the judge's satisfaction, challenges that go to the weight of the evidence are within the province of a fact finder, not a trial court judge. A district court should not make credibility determinations that are reserved for the jury. In this instance, the district court abused its discretion in excluding the expert evidence of David Spiegel and Ken Pytlewski, but did not abuse its discretion in excluding the expert evidence of Del Mortenson. The district court erred in granting summary judgment against Pyramid Tech's claims where genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the insurer breached its contract with Pyramid Tech and breached the implied covenant of good faith. However, to the extent such claims were premised on Pyramid Tech's business interruption theory, no material issues of fact existed and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment against that theory of liability. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for retrial. View "Pyramid Tech. v. Allied Public Adjusters" on Justia Law

LOWD plaintiffs appealed the district court's denial of their motion to preliminarily enjoin the Snow Basin logging project. The court concluded that the LOWD plaintiffs have shown that they were likely to prevail on their National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., claim regarding the Final Environmental Impact Statement's (FEIS) discussion of elk habitat because that discussion was insufficiently clear; the Environmental Impact Statement's (EIS) analysis of the project's effects on elk failed to satisfy NEPA's requirements; the LOWD plaintiffs have shown that absent a preliminary injunction, they were likely to face irreparable harm; LOWD plaintiffs have shown that the balance of the equities tipped in their favor; and LOWD plaintiffs have shown that the public interest supported the granting of a preliminary injunction. The court reversed the district court's assessment that the LOWD plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on one claim, affirmed the district court's determination that LWOD plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on other claims; and reversed the district court's holding that the LOWD plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction pursuant to Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. The court remanded with instructions. View "LOWD/BMBP v. Connaughton" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1962. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants conspired to pay inflated rent payments so that the properties sold to plaintiffs would appear far more valuable to third parties. The court held that the complaint did not meet the pleading standards by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, and In re Century Aluminum Co. Securities Litigation. The court concluded that the complaint's factual allegations did not support a plausible inference that defendants had the required specific intent to defraud, nor do they tend to exclude the alternative explanation that the transactions at issue were merely a group of business deals gone bad during a deep recession. The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' RICO allegations and the dismissal of plaintiffs' allegations of RICO conspiracy. View "Eclectic Props. East v. The Marcus & Millichap Co." on Justia Law

Using a methodology known as "stable isotope analysis," an expert hired by the city determined that the most likely dominant source of the perchlorate found in the city's groundwater was sodium nitrate that had been used as fertilizer. The city sued SQM, the company that imported sodium nitrate into the United States. Before trial, the district court held an evidentiary hearing under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and excluded the city's expert. The court reversed the district court's exclusion of the expert's testimony. The district court should not have made credibility determinations that were reserved for the jury; the Federal Rules of Evidence did not require an endorsement from the EPA approving the expert's results and the district court's conclusion to the contrary was an abuse of discretion; the district court erroneously ruled that the expert's methodologies have not been and cannot be tested; and the district court's resolution of the reference database was an abuse of discretion and sufficient grounds for reversal where the matter was for the jury to decide. The court affirmed the district court's denial of SQM's motion for summary judgment where SQM failed to show that there was no genuine factual dispute as to whether the city's claims were barred by the economic loss rule or by the applicable statute of limitations. View "City of Pomona v. SQM" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, machinists at Pearl Harbor, filed suit against defendants under state tort law on the theory that defendants failed to warn them of the hazards posed by asbestos used in and around equipment defendants sold to the Navy. Defendant Crane removed the actions to federal court under the federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442. The district court denied plaintiffs' motions to remand to state court and certified their orders for interlocutory appeal. The federal officer removal statute authorizes removal of a civil action brought against any person "acting under" an officer of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office." In this instance, Crane established that it is a "person" within the meaning of the statute, a causal nexus exists between plaintiffs' claims and the actions Crane took under the federal officer's direction, and it has a "colorable" federal defense to plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's orders. View "Leite v. Crane Co." on Justia Law

The Secretary filed suit against DSHS, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., overtime and record-keeping provisions. The Secretary provided proof of the alleged violations by 400 employees' signatures - 350 of which he obtained after he had filed suit. The district court held that these 350 employees were not informants whose identities were protected from discovery by the government's informants privilege and ordered the Secretary to answer three interrogatories that would disclose their identities. The Secretary petitioned for a writ of mandamus. The court concluded that the district court erroneously limited the scope of the informants privilege by focusing on the timing of the informants' statements, and DSHS did not have a compelling need for the identities or identifying information of the 250 employees who would not be witnesses at trial. Therefore, the court granted the petition and vacated the district court's order to compel the Secretary's responses to the interrogatories. View "In re: Perez" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants in the Superior Court of Guam, asserting claims arising from alleged breach of fiduciary duty in the course of the parties' several business ventures. Defendants removed to the District Court of Guam based on diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff is an alien admitted to the United States for permanent residence, living in Guam. Defendant Lai, a British Overseas Citizen, and Defendant Sekiguchi, a Japanese citizen, both live in Japan. The district court granted summary judgment on the merits in favor of defendants and plaintiff appealed, contesting subject matter jurisdiction for the first time. Whether or not Congress intended to confer jurisdiction in cases like this one by supplying constitutionally required minimal diversity through deemed citizenship, the deeming clause purported to do so. The court concluded, however, that the Organic Act of Guam, 48 U.S.C. 1421-1421k-1, precluded it from deciding the merits of the dispute between aliens because it conferred diversity jurisdiction upon the District Court of Guam reaching only as far as the diversity jurisdiction afforded to Article III courts. Because the Constitution does not supply diversity jurisdiction to Article III courts in suits between aliens, the jurisdiction afforded the federal court in Guam must also be so limited. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded, concluding that both the court and the District Court of Guam lacked jurisdiction to decide this dispute exclusively between aliens. View "Yokeno v. Sekiguchi" on Justia Law

Eldee-K filed suit against DIRECTV, alleging that DIRECTV has a policy of installing satellite reception equipment in common areas of apartment buildings and other dwelling units without the landlord's consent. Eldee-K sought to certify a class of all landlords who own and lease residential multiple dwelling units in the United States on which DIRECTV installed equipment based on Part 2 of its installation form. The district court dismissed Eldee-K's claims with prejudice, holding that the local action doctrine deprived it of jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim where the key harm in the complaint related to trespass on real property situated in Connecticut. The court concluded that the local action doctrine was jurisdictional; the court was bound by California law as to when an action constituted a local action for purposes of considering the court's jurisdiction; Eldee-K's allegations and the relief sought in its complaint indicated that the essence of Eldee-K's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200-10, claim was a trespass, which was a local action under California law; and because the real property at issue is in Connecticut, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Eldee-K's action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Eldee-K Rental Properties v. DIRECTV" on Justia Law