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

Plaintiff filed suit against the Postal Service for breach of prior settlement agreements, as well as various other claims related to her employment at the Postal Service. The district court dismissed plaintiff's breach of contract claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1), granted the Court of Federal Claims exclusive jurisdiction to hear breach of contract claims against the Postal Service that put more than $10,000 in controversy. The district court also dismissed seven of plaintiff's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff had not complied with the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2675(a), and held that plaintiff's three remaining claims were barred by res judicata. The court concluded that, even assuming that the Tucker Act conferred jurisdiction on the Court of Federal Claims to hear claims against the Postal Service, the Postal Reorganization Act (PRA), 39 U.S.C. 401 and 409, also vested the district court with independent jurisdiction over such claims. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's breach of contract claim. Although the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's breach of contract claim, it did not err in dismissing it because she failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. None of her remaining claims were viable and, therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal of her complaint. View "Tritz v. U.S. Postal Service" on Justia Law

The Clinics filed suit challenging California Welfare and Institutions Code 14131.10, which eliminated certain Medi-Cal benefits that the state deemed optional, including adult dental, podiatry, optometry, and chiropractic services. The court reversed the district court's holding that the Clinics have a private right of action to challenge the Department's implementation of the state plan amendments (SPA) prior to obtaining approval; affirmed that the Clinics have a private right of action to bring a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 challenging the validity of section 14131.10; and reversed the district court's interpretation of the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq., holding that section 14131.10 impermissibly eliminated mandatory services from coverage. View "California Ass'n of Rural Health Clinics v. Douglas" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of certain sections of California Senate Bill 6 (SB 6). SB 6, implementing California's Proposition 14 (Prop. 14), fundamentally changes the California election system by eliminating party primaries and general elections with party-nominated candidates, and substituting a nonpartisan primary and a two-candidate runoff. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the appeal; Plaintiff Chamness' case was not moot where his claim was capable of repetition because future election administrators would deny him the ability to use the designation "Independent" on the primary ballot; Plaintiffs Frederick's and Wilson's appeal were moot because they only sought declaratory relief affecting future elections; and Intervenor Galacki's claims regarding his write-in candidacy and the vote he cast for himself in the general election were moot. In Case No. 11-56449, the court held that Chamness failed to establish that SB 6 severely burdened his rights, and upheld the constitutionality of the statute as reasonably related to furthering the state's important interest in efficiently regulating elections. In Case No. 56303, the court held that the trial court acted well within its discretion in concluding that allowing Galacki to intervene would entail substantial delays and inefficiencies resolving the case, and in therefore denying Galacki's motion as untimely. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's order granting defendants summary judgment and denying Galacki's motion to intervene. View "Chamness v. Maldonado" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued defendant and the Church in Japan, alleging that they had tortiously induced her to transfer nearly all of her assets to the Church. After the Japanese courts awarded plaintiff a tort judgment, the Church contended that the judgment imposed liability for its religious teachings in violation of its constitutional right to free exercise of religion. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff, holding that the district court's recognition and enforcement of the judgment did not constitute "state action" triggering direct constitutional scrutiny. The court also held that neither the Japanese judgment nor the cause of action on which it was based rose to the level of repugnance to the public policy of California or of the United States that would justify a refusal to enforce the judgment under California's Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 1713-1724. View "Ohno v. Yasuma" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued police officers for their alleged use of excessive force in violation of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights. Plaintiff was awarded compensatory damages after a jury found that the officers' use of force was constitutionally excessive. Both parties cross-appealed. The court affirmed the district court's entry of judgment on the jury's verdict because the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity. The court held, however that the district court abused its discretion by failing to adequately explain its decision to reduce the amount awarded to plaintiff and in denying plaintiff pre-and post-judgment interest. Accordingly, the court reversed those portions of the district court's orders, remanding for further proceedings. View "Barnard v. Theobald" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's Proposition 100. Proposition 100 commands that Arizona state courts could not set bail for serious felony offenses as prescribed by the legislature if the person charged has entered or remained in the United States illegally and if the proof was evident or the presumption great as to the charge. After reviewing the record, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and partial dismissal, concluding that plaintiffs have not raised triable issues of fact as to whether Proposition 100 and its implementing procedures violated the substantive and procedural due process guarantees of the United State's Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, nor whether the Proposition 100 laws were preempted by federal immigration law. The court concluded that the Arizona Legislature and Arizona voters passed the Proposition 100 laws to further the state's legitimate and compelling interest in seeing that those accused of serious state-law crimes were brought to trial. View "Lopez-Valenzuela v. County of Maricopa" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of his son, filed suit against the Hawaii Department of Education, alleging violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400(d). The district court found that the Department did not deny the son a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by holding an annual individualized education program (IEP) meeting without the participation of the parent. Plaintiff did not attend the meeting even though he actively sought to reschedule it in order to participate. The court concluded, however, that the Department denied the son a FAPE by denying plaintiff the opportunity to participate and plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement if he could establish that the private school placement was proper under the Act. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Doug C., et al. v. State of Hawaii Dep't of Educ." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants, alleging violations of his constitutional rights after prison officials discovered a letter plaintiff wrote to his fellow inmates calling on them to work together in support of his class action lawsuit against prison administrators. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's adverse partial summary judgment order on his First Amendment claims. Pursuant to the Accord and Satisfaction, the parties agreed to withdraw all post-trial motions. Defendants also agreed to pay plaintiff punitive damages, plus costs and attorney's fees, and to expunge all records of the disciplinary charges. The Accord and Satisfaction encompassed the district court's prior summary judgment ruling on plaintiff's First Amendment claims. Accordingly, the court concluded that plaintiff's appeal was rendered moot by the parties' settlement agreement and dismissed the appeal. View "Jones v. McDaniel, et al." on Justia Law

Higher Taste sued the Park district under 42 U.S.C. 1983, requesting a declaration that Resolution 40-05 violated its rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and an injunction barring the resolution's enforcement. The district court granted Higher Taste's motion for a preliminary injunction, expressly ruling that Higher Taste had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. The parties later executed a written settlement agreement. Higher Taste then moved for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988(b), which permitted an award to the "prevailing party" in certain civil rights actions, including those brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The district court denied the motion. The court reversed and concluded that, because Higher Taste was a prevailing party within the meaning of section 1988, it should ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust. On remand, the district court should determine in the first instance whether such special circumstances exist. View "Higher Taste, Inc. v. City of Tacoma" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the Secretary's denial of their claims for Medicare coverage for dental services. Plaintiffs contended that this denial was premised on the Secretary's unreasonable interpretation of the Medicare Act, Pub. L. No. 89-97, 79 Stat. 286, which contravened the intent of Congress and violated plaintiffs' right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment. The court concluded that, although the statutory provision for exclusion of dental services was ambiguous in the sense that plausible divergent constructions could be urged, the Secretary's interpretation of the statute was reasonable. The court also concluded that the Secretary's statutory interpretation warranted Chevron deference and the Secretary's statutory interpretation was reasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Fournier v. Sebelius" on Justia Law