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

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of twelve felony counts related to a complex mortgage fraud scheme. Defendant filed two motions for a new trial, arguing that the government violated Brady v. Maryland by withholding material exculpatory evidence and violated her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. The district court denied the motions, concluding that Defendant’s rights under Brady and the Fourth Amendment had not been violated. A panel of the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s orders denying Defendant’s motions for a new trial and remanded, holding that the district court (1) abused its discretion in denying Defendant’s requests for an evidentiary hearing and for discovery; (2) should reconsider Defendant’s Brady claims on an open record, in conjunction with the additional disclosure with which Defendant sought to augment the record on appeal; and (3) erred in concluding that an employee’s copying of documents from Defendant’s real estate and investment offices was not a search implicating the Fourth Amendment. View "United States v. Mazzarella" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief against Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, alleging that Defendants have a custom, policy and practice of racially profiling Latino drivers and passengers and of stopping them pretextually under the auspices of enforcing immigration-related laws. After a bench trial, the district court concluded that Defendants employed unconstitutional policies in relation to patrol operations and entered a permanent injunction against Defendants. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the permanent injunction, holding (1) Maricopa County, rather than the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, should have been named as the party in the action; (2) sufficient evidence supported the court’s finding that Defendants’ constitutional violations occurred during regular, non-saturation patrols; (3) the named plaintiffs had standing to assert the claims of absent class members who were stopped during non-saturation patrols; and (4) while many of the provisions of the injunction were narrowly tailored to remedy the specific constitutional violations found by the district court, some terms of the injunction were broader than necessary to cure the constitutional violations at issue in this case. Remanded. View "Melendres v. Arpaio" on Justia Law

Here a panel of the Ninth Circuit withdrew its opinion filed on February 25, 2015 and replaced it with this amended opinion. The panel reversed the district’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Sears, Roebuck and Co. in a suit filed by Plaintiff, a former employee of Sears. Plaintiff alleged three disability discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The panel concluded that Plaintiff presented triable claims under FEHA that deserved trial. The panel additionally noted (1) it was beside the point that some of Plaintiff’s evidence was self-serving because such testimony was admissible, though absent corroboration, it may have limited weight; and (2) a district court could disregard a self-serving declaration that stated only conclusions and not facts that would be admissible evidence. Remanded. View "Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck and Co." on Justia Law

A panel of the Ninth Circuit filed an amended opinion in this dispute regarding attorney’s fees. In the amended opinion, the panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs to Capristrano Unified School District as the prevailing defendant in an action brought by the mother of a special education student alleging violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. 1983. The panel (1) agreed with the district court that the ADA and section 1983 claims were frivolous and affirmed the award of attorney’s fees and costs for representation relating to those claims; and (2) disagreed with the district court that the IDEA and Rehabilitation Act claims were frivolous and/or brought for an improper purpose and reversed the district court to the extent that it awarded attorney’s fees and costs related to the litigation of those claims. The cause was remanded. The panel also filed an order amending the opinion, denying a petition for rehearing and a suggestion for rehearing en banc, and directing the mandate to issue forthwith. View "C.W. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a physician, filed an employment discrimination action against the California Emergency Physicians Medical Group (CEP) in state court. CEP removed the suit to federal court. Prior to trial, the parties agreed in writing to settle the case. The settlement agreement included a provision that Plaintiff waive his rights to employment with CEP or at any facility that CEP may own or with which it may contract in the future. Plaintiff refused to execute the written agreement and attempted to have it set aside. The district court ultimately ordered that the settlement be enforced and dismissed the case, concluding that Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 16600, which provides that a contract is void if it restrains anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, did not apply because the no-employment provision in the settlement agreement did not constitute a covenant not to compete. A panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding (1) the parties’ dispute regarding whether the no-employment provision voided the settlement agreement was ripe for review under the traditional ripeness standard; and (2) the district court abused its discretion by categorically excluding the settlement agreement from the ambit of 16600 solely on the ground that it did not constitute a covenant not to compete. Remanded. View "Golden v. Cal. Emergency Physicians Med. Group" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted and sentenced for conspiracy to obstruct justice, accessory after the fact to mail fraud and securities law violations, altering documents to influence a federal investigation, and aiding and abetting false testimony at an SEC deposition. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err at sentencing by applying both the “Broker-Dealer” enhancement and the “Special Skill” enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines; (2) the district court did not err in calculating loss and victim amounts, as required under the Sentencing Guidelines; (3) Defendant was competent to waive his right to a jury trial, and his waiver was knowing and intelligent; and (4) the district court did not plainly err in (a) excluding a non-lawyer’s testimony reciting facts and the legal conclusion that Defendant did not break the law; (b) determining that the district court was capable of understanding an expert’s opinion regarding Defendant’s professional and ethical duties as an attorney; and (c) admitting coconspirator nonhearsay testimony. View "United States v. Tamman" on Justia Law

Two associations and two individuals brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 challenging two requirements that the State of California and the City of Chula Vista, California, place on persons who wish to sponsor a local ballot measure: (1) the requirement that official proponents of local ballot initiatives be electors, thereby excluding non-natural persons such as corporations and associations; and (2) the requirement that official initiative proponents identify themselves on the face of the initiative petitions. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The en banc court of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the requirement that the official proponent of an initiative be an elector does not violate Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association; but (2) the requirement that the name on the official proponent of an initiative be disclosed on the face of the initiative petitions satisfies exacting scrutiny under the First Amendment. View "Chula Vista Citizens for Jobs v. Norris" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of his stepdaughter. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence on direct appeal. Defendant later filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus, listing thirteen purported errors by the Washington state courts. The district court denied habeas relief. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the Washington Supreme Court did not act unreasonably on rejecting Defendant’s claim that his shackling on the first day of jury selection for the sentencing trial deprived him of the constitutional right to due process; (2) the Washington Supreme Court reasonably rejected Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims; (3) the Washington Supreme Court was not unreasonable in rejecting Defendant’s claims that he was deprived of his right to trial by an impartial jury because a juror lied during voir dire; and (4) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s challenges to his conviction and death sentence. View "Elmore v. Sinclair" on Justia Law

Defendant was found guilty of murder and two counts of burglary in California state court and sentenced to death. Defendant sought habeas relief in California courts, to no avail. Defendant subsequently filed a federal habeas petition. The district court affirmed the conviction, concluding (1) Defendant’s guilt-phase challenges failed; and (2) counsel for Defendant at the penalty phase of trial had performed deficiently by failing to investigate and present certain mitigating evidence, but Defendant failed to establish that he had been prejudiced as a result. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction but reversed as to Defendant’s sentence, holding that the district court (1) did not err in concluding that counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate and present mitigating evidence at the penalty phase; but (2) erred in concluding that counsel’s deficient performance did not prejudice Defendant with respect to the penalty-phase claim. Remanded. View "Doe v. Ayers" on Justia Law

Defendant, a California death row inmate, was convicted of the murders of four people. For the murders, the California courts imposed two death sentences, one in Orange County and one in Riverside County. Defendant filed habeas corpus petitions in both cases, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at various phases of each trial. The district court denied the petitions. The Ninth District affirmed, holding (1) counsel in the Orange County trial did not render deficient performance; (2) any deficient performance in the Riverside County trial did not result in prejudice to Defendant; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a stay to determine Defendant’s competency while the Orange County petition was pending. View "Medina v. Chappell" on Justia Law