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

Plaintiff filed suit seeking monetary and equitable relief against various state and federal officials alleging 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims, state law tort claims, and constitutional claims based on her inclusion in the government’s terrorist databases, including the No-Fly List. After determining that plaintiff was a prevailing party, the district court found that the government was substantially justified respecting its pre-Ibrahim II standing arguments, its defense against plaintiff's visa-related claims, and its various privilege assertions. The court disallowed fees associated with those issues and otherwise found the government's conduct was not justified. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Hensley v. Eckerhart. Plaintiff contends, among other things, that the district court incorrectly found that the government had not acted in bad faith under EAJA section 2412(b) and therefore erred by declining to award market-rate fees. The court held that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Commissioner, INS v. Jean, the district court erred by making multiple substantial justification determinations. Therefore, the court reversed as to this issue. The court also reversed the district court’s various reductions imposed on plaintiff's eligible fees arising from its incorrect substantial justification analysis. However, the court affirmed the district court’s bad faith findings as well as its relatedness findings under Eckerhart, and the district court's striking of plaintiff's objections to the special master’s report on expenses. View "Ibrahim v. US DHS" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are Hawaiian residents who challenge the recent efforts by a group of Native Hawaiians to establish their own government. Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s order denying their request for a preliminary injunction to stop activities related to the drafting and ratification of self-governance documents. Separately, another group of Hawaii residents appeals the district court’s denial of their motion to intervene in plaintiffs’ lawsuit. Before the district court, plaintiffs focused their injunction request on the delegation election. That election, however, has been cancelled, and plaintiffs do not argue that similar elections will occur in the future. The court affirmed the dismissal of the interlocutory appeal as moot, concluding that there is no reasonable expectation that plaintiffs will be subject to the same injury again, given the disavowal of any election. Further, the district court retains jurisdiction over the underlying lawsuit, and dismissing the preliminary injunction appeal will not, by itself, insulate defendants’ practices from judicial scrutiny. The court also affirmed the district court's order denying intervention as of right where the court agreed with the district court that the prospective intervenors’ interests would not, as a practical matter, be impaired or impeded as a result of plaintiffs’ litigation. The district court properly reasoned that the prospective intervenors’ claims would raise entirely different issues from those raised by plaintiffs, and that the proposed intervenors could adequately protect their interests in separate litigation. View "Akina v. Hawaii" on Justia Law

After plaintiff was injured in an altercation with two LAPD officers, he filed an administrative claim against the City, alleging that the officers acted unlawfully. The police union, LAPPL, allegedly with assistance from City officials, responded by accusing plaintiff, a prominent business executive, of being a drug abuser and of having acted aggressively toward the officers. The episode attracted publicity and plaintiff lost his job. Plaintiff then filed suit alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law against defendants. Plaintiff's claims were based on this initial interactions with the LAPD and on the subsequent publicity. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the unlawful retaliation claim and on plaintiff's claim that the LAPD acted negligently. Plaintiff's other claims proceeded to trial and the jury found for defendants. The court concluded that the statements allegedly made against plaintiff as joint state actions by the LAPPL were not sufficiently adverse to support a claim of First Amendment retaliation. Consequently, the district court’s grant of summary judgment for that claim was proper. Similarly, the district court did not err in its decisions regarding plaintiff's police negligence, excessive force, and negligent supervision claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Mulligan v. Nichols" on Justia Law

After Manuel Diaz was shot by an Anaheim police officer, Diaz's estate and mother filed suit against the officer and the city, alleging federal civil rights violations. The jury returned the verdict in favor of defendants. The court concluded that the trial court erred in failing to bifurcate liability from compensatory damages where graphic and prejudicial evidence about the victim has little, and in large part no, relevance to the liability issue. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded to the district court with some guidance. First, the evidence of Diaz’s drug use and gang affiliation has marginal, if any, probative value as to damages, and none as to liability. On retrial, the district court should closely review this evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403, and should assure that such evidence is admitted only to the degree that the testimony is connected up with Ms. Huizar’s reaction to her son’s death. Second, if plaintiffs are willing to stipulate that Diaz was a gang member (which they claim they tried to do during trial), no expert testimony about gangs - such as gang activities, tattoos, or monikers - should be admitted. Third, while there is a “strong presumption that jurors follow instructions,” a limiting instruction may not sufficiently mitigate the prejudicial impact of evidence in all cases. And fourth, if the district court is going to sustain an objection and grant a motion to strike, merely saying “stricken” does not sufficiently inform the jury about the proper use of the evidence it just heard. Finally, the court concluded that the trial court did not err in ruling force was not excessive as a matter of law. View "Estate of Diaz v. City of Anaheim" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging facial constitutional challenges to California’s law prohibiting state-licensed mental health providers from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) with minor patients (Senate Bill 1172, Business and Professions Code sections 865, 865.1, and 865.2). The court rejected plaintiffs' claim that SB 1172 violates the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment and that SB 1172 violates the privacy rights of their minor clients. In this case, SB 1172 does not regulate conduct outside the scope of the counselor-client relationship, and thus the law does not excessively entangle the State with religion. The court further concluded that the evidence falls far short of demonstrating that the primary intended effect of SB 1172 was to inhibit religion. The court rejected plaintiffs' claims under the Religion Clauses and declined to apply strict scrutiny where the court held in Pickup v. Brown that SB 1172 survives rational basis review because “SB 1172 is rationally related to the legitimate government interest of protecting the well-being of minors.” Finally, plaintiffs' privacy claim is foreclosed (see Pickup v. Brown). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Welch v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Party brought a facial First Amendment challenge to Hawaii’s open primary system, seeking to limit the participants in its primary elections to its formal members or to voters who are otherwise willing publicly to declare their support for the Party. The Party claims that Hawaii’s open primary system, which allows registered voters to participate in any party’s primary without formally joining or declaring support for that party, severely burdens the Party’s associational rights. Under Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent, the court concluded that the extent of the burden that a primary system imposes on associational rights is a factual question on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. In this case, the court concluded that the Party's preference for limiting primary participants to registered Party members, coupled with the fact that more people vote in Democratic primaries than are formally registered with the Party, is not sufficient to show that Hawaii’s open primary system severely burdens the Party’s associational rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Democratic Party of Hawaii v. Nago" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the City for retaliation, alleging that he was terminated for planning to testify against the City in a lawsuit relating to age discrimination. Plaintiff alleged that his termination violated both the First Amendment and the retaliation provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 623(d). The court rejected the City's argument that plaintiff's speech was not speech as a citizen on a matter of public concern and so fell outside the First Amendment's protections. In this case, plaintiff's sworn statement and imminent testimony were outside the scope of his ordinary job duties, which means that he was engaged in speech as a citizen for First Amendment purposes. The court also concluded that the retaliation provision of the ADEA does not preclude a plaintiff such as the one in this case from bringing a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Given the substantial difference between the level of scrutiny afforded age discrimination equal protection claims and First Amendment retaliation claims, the court cannot assume that Congress intended the ADEA to affect the availability of section 1983 claims in the same manner in both subject areas. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Stilwell v. City of Williams" on Justia Law

The City of Glendale installed a public monument in 2013 commemorating the “Comfort Women,” an unknown number of women that South Korea asserts, but Japan disputes, were forced to serve as sexual partners to members of the Japanese Imperial Army during World War II and the decade preceding it. A Japanese-American resident of Los Angeles and a non-profit organization filed suit claiming that the installation of the monument intrudes on the federal government’s exclusive foreign affairs power and is thereby preempted under the foreign affairs doctrine. In plaintiffs’ view, Glendale’s monument disrupts the federal government’s foreign policy of nonintervention and encouragement of peaceful resolution of the Comfort Women dispute. The complaint seeks an order declaring Glendale’s installation of the monument unconstitutional and compelling Glendale to remove the monument from public property. The district court dismissed plaintiffs' constitutional claims with prejudice. The court concluded that plaintiffs have standing where the “inability to unreservedly use” Glendale’s Central Park constitutes an injury in fact for purposes of Article III standing. Plaintiffs can also establish that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action, and that a favorable decision is likely to redress the injury. On the merits, the court concluded that plaintiffs have not plausibly claimed that Glendale’s actions are preempted where Glendale's installation of the monument concerns an area of traditional state responsibility and does not intrude on the federal government’s foreign affairs power. Furthermore, the Supremacy Clause does not preempt a local government’s expression, through a public monument, of a particular viewpoint on a matter related to foreign affairs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Gingery v. City of Glendale" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his special motion under the California anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (“anti-SLAPP”) statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16, to strike the second amended complaint filed by Travelers. Defendant maintains that Travelers' claims arise out of his representation of Travelers' insured, VDG, as Cumis counsel, and thus defendant's activity was protected under the anti-SLAPP statute. Determining that the court has jurisdiction to consider the appeal, the court concluded that Travelers' causes of action for declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment, breach of Cal. Civ. Code 2860(d), and concealment do no arise from protected activity because they are not based on an act in furtherance of defendant's right of petition or free speech; Travelers has made a prima facie showing of facts supporting its causes of action so as to establish a probability of prevailing on the merits sufficient to survive the motion to strike; and, because the causes of action at issue arise from defendant's post-settlement conduct, not his communications with VDG in settling the prior lawsuit, California’s litigation privilege, Cal. Civ. Code 47(b), does not bar this suit. The court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to review defendant's challenge to the district court’s striking count two, alleging breach of a defense handling agreement, because the denial was without prejudice, and there is no final order as to this claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hirsh" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Leah Manzari, famous under her professional name, Danni Ashe, for her groundbreaking work in monetizing online pornography, filed a defamation suit claiming that the Daily Mail Online, an online news outlet, used a photograph of her to convey the defamatory impression that she had tested positive for HIV. The Daily Mail filed an interlocutory appeal under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.15. The court agreed with the district court that, at this stage in the litigation, Manzari has presented sufficient evidence to move forward with her claim that the Daily Mail Online employees acted with actual malice when they published the article implying that Manzari was an HIV-positive sex worker. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the Daily Mail's motion to strike the complaint. View "Manzari v. Associated Newspapers" on Justia Law