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

The case involves a non-fatal shooting of Joseph Williams by officers of the Sparks Police Department following a 42-minute car chase. Williams had stolen alcohol and vandalized a vehicle, leading to a police pursuit. During the chase, Williams ran red lights, drove through a fence, and briefly drove on the wrong side of the freeway. The chase ended when officers pinned Williams's truck, but he continued to attempt to flee, leading officers to fire multiple rounds, injuring him.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied summary judgment on Williams's claims of excessive force, municipal liability, and battery, except for the negligence claim. The court found genuine factual disputes about the threat Williams posed and whether he was attempting to flee when officers fired. The court also denied summary judgment on the Monell claims and the battery claim, citing unresolved factual issues.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of summary judgment. The appellate court found that video evidence clearly showed Williams attempting to accelerate, contradicting his claim. The court held that the officers' use of deadly force was objectively reasonable, given the threat Williams posed to public safety. The court also exercised pendent jurisdiction over the Monell and battery claims, finding no constitutional violation in the officers' use of force and ruling that the battery claim failed because the force used was not unreasonable. The court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Williams v. City of Sparks" on Justia Law

La Dell Grizzell, acting on behalf of her minor children, sued San Elijo Elementary School and the San Marcos Unified School District, alleging that the school violated her children's federal and state civil rights. The complaint included claims of racial discrimination and other civil rights violations, such as racial epithets, physical assaults, and discriminatory disciplinary measures. Grizzell sought to proceed without legal representation.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed the case without prejudice, citing the "counsel mandate," which precludes nonlawyer parents from representing their children pro se. The court emphasized that regardless of the merits of the case, Grizzell could not represent her children without an attorney. The district court instructed that the minor plaintiffs could only proceed through a licensed attorney.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that it was bound by its precedent in Johns v. County of San Diego, which prohibits nonattorney parents from representing their children in court. Despite Grizzell's arguments that this rule impedes access to justice for children from low-income families, the panel concluded that it could not deviate from established precedent. The court acknowledged the serious implications of the counsel mandate but affirmed the dismissal without prejudice, indicating that only en banc review could potentially alter the rule. View "GRIZZELL V. SAN ELIJO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL" on Justia Law

The case involves a consumer class action against Premier Nutrition Corporation, which marketed Joint Juice, a dietary supplement drink, as effective for relieving joint pain. Mary Beth Montera, representing a class of New York consumers, alleged that Premier's advertising was deceptive and violated New York General Business Law (GBL) §§ 349 and 350. These laws require proof that the defendant engaged in consumer-oriented conduct that was materially misleading and caused injury to the plaintiff.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California certified the class and the case proceeded to trial. Montera presented evidence, including studies showing that Joint Juice's key ingredients, glucosamine and chondroitin, were ineffective for joint health. Premier countered with industry-funded studies supporting the product's efficacy. The jury found Premier's statements deceptive and awarded statutory damages based on the number of units sold in New York during the class period. Premier's post-trial motions to decertify the class and for judgment as a matter of law were denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's rulings on class certification, liability under GBL §§ 349 and 350, and the initial calculation of statutory damages. The court rejected Premier's arguments that its statements were not materially misleading and that Montera's injury was not cognizable under New York law. The court also upheld the jury's finding that the class members' injuries were caused by Premier's misrepresentations.However, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's award of prejudgment interest, ruling that statutory damages under GBL §§ 349 and 350 are not compensatory and thus do not warrant prejudgment interest. The court also remanded the case for the district court to reconsider the statutory damages award in light of the factors identified in Wakefield v. ViSalus, Inc., which addresses the substantive due process limits on aggregate statutory damages. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated and remanded in part. View "MONTERA V. PREMIER NUTRITION CORPORATION" on Justia Law

John Doe, a detained alien, filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Northern District of California, challenging his detention at the Golden State Annex (GSA) in the Eastern District of California. He named several federal officials, including the Attorney General and the Acting Director for the San Francisco ICE Field Office, as respondents. Doe sought release unless he was provided a bond hearing. The district court granted Doe’s petition, leading to his release after a bond hearing.The district court denied the respondents' motion to dismiss, which argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because Doe did not name his immediate custodian and filed the petition outside the district of confinement. The court held that the Northern District of California was an appropriate jurisdiction for petitions filed by aliens detained by the San Francisco ICE Field Office.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction over Doe’s habeas petition. The court explained that under Rumsfeld v. Padilla, a core habeas petition challenging present physical confinement must name the immediate custodian, typically the warden, and be filed in the district of confinement. Doe’s petition was a core habeas petition because it sought release from detention. However, Doe failed to name the Facility Administrator of GSA as the respondent and filed the petition in the Northern District of California instead of the Eastern District of California, where he was confined. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss and remanded with instructions to vacate the grant of Doe’s habeas petition. View "DOE V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, EB Holdings II, Inc. and QXH II, Inc., sought coverage from their insurers for legal fees and expenses incurred in defending against a lawsuit alleging fraudulent inducement in the purchase of notes backed by their long-term debt. The insurers denied coverage, claiming the plaintiffs made material misrepresentations in their insurance renewal application by failing to disclose significant long-term debt.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment in favor of the insurers, concluding that Nevada law governed the affirmative defense of material misrepresentation. The court found that the plaintiffs had indeed made a material misrepresentation by not disclosing their long-term debt, thus barring coverage under the insurance policies.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court erred in its choice-of-law analysis. The Ninth Circuit determined that Texas law, not Nevada law, should govern the affirmative defense of material misrepresentation. The court reasoned that the substantial relationship test set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 188 pointed to Texas law, given that the underwriting process largely occurred through agents based in Texas and the plaintiffs were headquartered there.Applying Texas law, the Ninth Circuit found that there were material disputes of fact regarding the elements of the affirmative defense, including the plaintiffs' intent to deceive and whether the insurers provided timely notice of their refusal to be bound by the policy. Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "EB HOLDINGS II, INC. V. ILLINOIS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY" on Justia Law

The case involves a coalition of states led by Washington suing the FDA over its 2023 REMS, which eliminated in-person dispensing requirements for the abortion drug mifepristone. Washington argues that the FDA should have further reduced restrictions on the drug, claiming that the remaining requirements impose unnecessary hurdles. Idaho, leading another coalition of states, sought to intervene, arguing that the elimination of the in-person dispensing requirement would harm its interests by making the drug easier to obtain and harder to police, potentially increasing Medicaid costs and endangering maternal health and fetal life.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington denied Idaho's motion to intervene. The court found that Idaho did not have a significantly protectable interest that would be impaired by the litigation, as its complaint concerned different aspects of the 2023 REMS. The court also denied permissive intervention, concluding that Idaho's claims did not share common questions of law or fact with Washington's claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's denial of Idaho's motion to intervene as of right. The Ninth Circuit held that Idaho must independently satisfy the requirements of Article III standing because it sought different relief from Washington. The court concluded that Idaho's complaint did not establish a cognizable injury-in-fact that was fairly traceable to the FDA's revised safe-use restrictions. Idaho's alleged economic injuries, law enforcement burdens, and quasi-sovereign interests were deemed too speculative or indirect to confer standing. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the portion of the appeal concerning the denial of permissive intervention. View "STATE OF WASHINGTON V. FDA" on Justia Law

Sumontinee Sridej, a Thai citizen, was accused of defrauding her employer in Thailand of approximately $4 million worth of electronics between 2013 and 2015. She left Thailand in January 2015 and moved to Las Vegas, Nevada. In 2022, Thailand requested her extradition under the extradition treaty between Thailand and the United States. The U.S. government filed a complaint seeking her arrest and extradition, and a magistrate judge certified her extradition in January 2023. Sridej then filed a habeas corpus petition challenging her extradition, which the district court denied, allowing her to renew her claim after the Secretary of State made a formal extradition determination.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied Sridej’s habeas corpus petition and her subsequent motion to reopen the case under Rule 60(b). The district court found that the Secretary of State had granted Thailand’s extradition request and that the Secretary had considered whether Sridej would face a risk of torture if extradited, as required by the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and its implementing regulations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s order. The Ninth Circuit held that the Secretary of State had properly considered the risk of torture in compliance with CAT’s regulations. The court found that a declaration by an Attorney Adviser at the Office of the Legal Adviser for the Department of State was sufficient to establish that the Secretary had fulfilled his obligations. The court also held that the declaration did not need to be signed by the Secretary or a senior official and did not require a case-specific explanation for the extradition decision due to the doctrines of separation of powers and non-inquiry. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of Sridej’s Rule 60(b) motion. View "SRIDEJ V. BLINKEN" on Justia Law

Vincent Bell, a pretrial detainee with an amputated right leg, alleged that deputies used excessive force during a cell extraction and transfer at the San Francisco Jail. Bell claimed that Sergeant Yvette Williams did not provide him with a wheelchair or other mobility device, forcing him to hop on one leg until he fell. Deputies then carried him by his arms and leg, causing him pain and minor injuries. Bell sued under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held a jury trial. The jury found in favor of Bell on his excessive force claim against Williams and his ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against the City and County of San Francisco. However, the jury did not find that Williams caused Bell physical or emotional harm. The jury awarded Bell $504,000 in compensatory damages against the City but not against Williams. The district court denied the defendants' post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the jury's verdict on Bell's Fourteenth Amendment excessive force claim and his ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, finding substantial evidence supported these claims. However, the court reversed the district court's decision on Bell's Monell theory of liability, concluding that Bell did not present substantial evidence showing that the City's training was the product of deliberate indifference to a known risk. The court also vacated the jury's compensatory damages award, deeming it grossly excessive, and remanded for a remittitur or a new trial on damages. View "BELL V. WILLIAMS" on Justia Law

A former transportation security officer (TSO) with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) alleged that his termination was an act of retaliation under Title VII. The TSA terminated his employment for failing to cooperate in an investigation into whether he received illegal compensation for serving as a personal representative during internal agency investigations. The plaintiff argued that this reason was a pretext for retaliation due to his prior complaints to the TSA’s Equal Employment Office (EEO) about a hostile work environment and denial of Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of Homeland Security. The court found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to show that the TSA’s stated reason for his termination was pretextual. The court noted that the temporal proximity between the plaintiff’s last EEO complaint and his termination (56 days) was not enough to establish pretext, especially given the concurrent timing of the plaintiff’s noncooperation with the investigation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the 56-day gap between the plaintiff’s final EEO complaint and his termination was insufficient by itself to show pretext. The court also noted that the timing of the plaintiff’s noncooperation with the investigation supported the TSA’s stated reason for termination. Additionally, the court found that other circumstantial evidence presented by the plaintiff did not create a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext. The court concluded that the TSA had a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for terminating the plaintiff’s employment and affirmed the summary judgment. View "KAMA V. MAYORKAS" on Justia Law

The case involves three sets of plaintiffs who filed class-action lawsuits against their healthcare provider, Cedars-Sinai Health System and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. The plaintiffs alleged that Cedars-Sinai unlawfully disclosed their private medical information to third parties through tracking software on its website. Cedars-Sinai removed the suits to federal court, arguing that it developed its website while acting under a federal officer and at the direction of the federal government.The district court disagreed with Cedars-Sinai's argument. It held that Cedars-Sinai developed its website in compliance with a generally applicable and comprehensive regulatory scheme and that there is therefore no federal jurisdiction under § 1442(a)(1). The court found that although Cedars-Sinai’s website furthers the government’s broad goal of promoting access to digital health records, Cedars-Sinai’s relationship with the federal government does not establish that it acted pursuant to congressionally delegated authority to help accomplish a basic governmental task.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s orders remanding the removed actions to state court. The court agreed with the district court that Cedars-Sinai developed its website in compliance with a generally applicable and comprehensive regulatory scheme under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, and that there was therefore no federal jurisdiction under § 1442(a)(1). The court concluded that Cedars-Sinai did not meet § 1442(a)(1)’s “causal nexus” requirement. View "Doe v. Cedars-Sinai Health System" on Justia Law