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

Plaintiffs filed suit against Wells Fargo, raising multiple causes of action under state and federal law pertaining to plaintiffs' home loan and deed of trust. At issue was whether, under 28 U.S.C. 1348, a national bank is a citizen of both the state in which its principal place of business is located as designated in the banks' articles of association. The court concluded that, under section 1348, a national bank is a citizen only of the state in which its main office is located. Therefore, the district court had diversity jurisdiction because there was complete diversity between plaintiffs, citizens of California, and Wells Fargo, a citizen of South Dakota. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's judgment to the contrary and remanded for further proceedings. View "Rouse, et al. v. Wachovia Mortgage" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an American citizen born in Iran, petitioned for review of a determination letter issued by DHS, seeking disclosure of his watchlist status, a meaningful opportunity to contest inclusion on any watchlist, and removal from all government watchlists. The watchlist at issue is the Consolidated Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB). In Latif v. Holder, the court held that 49 U.S.C. 46110 did not grant circuit courts jurisdiction over broad constitutional claims - such as petitioner's - that seek removal from the TSDB. The court reaffirmed its holding in Latif and clarified that it is applicable even where a traveler's claims are brought as a challenge to a DHS Travel Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) determination letter. Accordingly, the court transferred to the district court where the jurisdictional defects that prevented the court from hearing petitioner's claims would not exist. View "Arjmand v. DHS" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an English auctioneer of thoroughbred horses, filed suit against defendant after defendant took possession of a horse but did not pay for it. The district court granted title and right of possession of the horse to plaintiff but did not award damages for the reduction in the horse's value while she was held by defendant. The district court instructed plaintiff to move to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e) when it knew the amount of the damages, but the district court overlooked the 28-day deadline for motions under Rule 59(e). Relying on Garamendi v. Henin, the court held that the district court's use of Rule 60(a) in correcting the judgment to award damages was proper where the district court's overlooking of the 28-day time limit for Rule 59(e) relief was the kind of clerical error, oversight or omission that was amendable to correction under Rule 60(a). In this instance, it was obvious that the district court did not change its mind and it intended that plaintiff should receive depreciation damages for the horse. It was also obvious that the district court did not intend that plaintiff would be unable to amend the judgment after the 28-day time limit under Rule 59(e) had elapsed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Tattersalls v. DeHaven" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and others protested weekly outside the locked fence that surrounds the LA Campus of the VAGLA to draw public attention to the VA's failure to use the lawn for veterans. Plaintiff filed suit challenging the inconsistent enforcement of 38 C.F.R. 1.218, which prohibited the posting of materials on VA property except under certain circumstances. The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiff with regard to declaratory relief, but denied any injunctive relief based on mootness. Plaintiff appealed. The district court concluded that a June 2010 e-mail instructing the VAGLA police to enforce section 1.218(a)(9) precisely and consistently mooted plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction by closing the LA Campus fence as a forum for all speech. The court agreed with the district court that the Government's voluntary cessation of its inconsistent enforcement of section 1.218(a)(9) mooted the request for injunctive relief. The court held that the VA satisfied its heavy burden of demonstrating mootness. The court presumed that the Government acted in good faith, and that presumption was especially strong here, where the Government was merely recommitting to consistent enforcement of one of its own longstanding regulations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Rosebrock v. Mathis, et al." on Justia Law