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

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of committing and conspiring to commit wire fraud in connection with a scheme to secure mortgages by using false information in loan applications and supporting documents. The Fourth Circuit reversed, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, the district court’s decision to exclude, as highly prejudicial and possessing no probative value, all evidence of Defendant’s alleged abuse at the hands of her then-boyfriend (and alleged co-conspirator), and to instruct the jury to disregard this evidence in its entirety, was error; and (2) the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Remanded. View "United States v. Haischer" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who was disabled and used a wheelchair, brought suit against Bed Bath & Beyond of California (BB&B), claiming violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related state law provisions for ten purported access barriers. The district court granted summary judgment for BB&B and concluded that several of Plaintiff’s claims warranted an award of attorneys’ fees to BB&B. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of BB&B, as (i) Plaintiff’s claim regarding clearance next to a restroom door in a store was without merit, as the ADA Accessibility Guidelines do not require any length of wall space on the side of the doorframe opposite the hinges; and (ii) BB&B, as a tenant, was not liable for ADA violations occurring in the parking lot outside of its store where that area was controlled by the landlord and not leased by Defendant; but (2) the district court erred in concluding that eight of Plaintiff’s ten claims were frivolous, and therefore, BB&B was not entitled to attorneys’ fees for any of Plaintiff’s claims. View "Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond of Cal., LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was convicted of second-degree murder and served more than twenty-six years in custody. In 2009, after a federal judge determined that falsified evidence had been introduced at trial, Plaintiff was released. The State subsequently dismissed the charges against him. Thereafter, Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against two Los Angeles Police Department detectives, alleging that Defendants fabricated reports, investigative notes, and photographs of a crime scene during their homicide investigation. The detectives also testified during preliminary proceedings and at trial. At issue in this interlocutory appeal was whether the doctrine of absolute witness immunity, which shields the detectives from liability for their testimony, also extended to the detectives' pre-trial actions. The district court rejected Defendants’ claim to absolute witness immunity for the alleged pre-trial fabrications. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the court’s denial of summary judgment on witness immunity grounds, holding that Defendants’ investigative materials and allegedly falsified reconstruction of the crime scene fell outside the protection of absolute immunity, and further, the policy interests behind absolute immunity for testimony did not apply to the investigative materials in this case. View "Lisker v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were two Yemeni-born Muslim seamen who were United States citizens. Their civil rights action concerned a tanker ship owned by the United States Maritime Administration but operated by a private company under a contract. The first seaman alleged that the human resources director of the companying operating the ship ordered that he be fired because of his national origin. The second seaman alleged that he was not hired to work aboard the ship because of his religion and national origin. Both plaintiffs named the human resources director as a defendant but not the United States. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that because Plaintiffs’ claims both involved a contract for employment or potential employment aboard a public vessel of the United States and had a sufficient maritime connection, they were required to bring those claims against the United States. View "Ali v. Rogers" on Justia Law

Petitioner was a California state prisoner who was serving a forty-year “three strikes” sentence for first-degree burglary. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), arguing that her attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to present evidence of mental illness in Petitioner's Romero motion asking the sentencing court to disregard two of her strikes. The district court denied the petition. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) even assuming that the applicability of Strickland v. Washington to noncapital sentencing is clearly established such that federal courts can afford relief from a state court’s flawed application of Strickland in that context, Petitioner could not prevail under the review standard imposed by the AEDPA; and (2) the state court’s findings that trial counsel’s performance did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness and that submission of Petitioner’s medical evidence would not have resulted in a successful Romero motion and a concomitantly reduced sentence were not unreasonable applications of the Strickland standard. View "Daire v. Lattimore" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted of importing heroin and methamphetamine. Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment due to the government’s destruction of potentially useful evidence - video footage of a Port of Entry pedestrian line on the morning of Defendant’s arrest - that might have supported her claim of duress. The district court denied the motion. Defendant subsequently entered a conditional plea of guilty. Defendant appealed, arguing that the government’s failure to preserve the video footage violated her due process right to present a complete defense. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Defendant’s due process rights were violated because (1) a Homeland Security agent, whose probable cause statement omitted any reference to Defendant’s claims of duress, knew of the apparent exculpatory value of the of the video and acted in bad faith by failing to preserve it; and (2) Defendant was unable to find comparable evidence to support her defense of duress. Remanded with directions to dismiss the indictment. View "United States v. Zaragoza-Moreira" on Justia Law

Appellants filed this putative class action challenging the California State Controller’s application of California’s Unclaimed Property Law (“UPL”), which provides for the conditional transfer of unclaimed property to the State of California. Appellants claimed that the procedures used both before unclaimed property is transferred to the Controller (“pre-escheat”) and after it is transferred (“post-escheat”) violate their due process rights. The district court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Appellants’ argument that the pre-escheat notice provided by the Controller is constitutionally inadequate because the Controller does not attempt to locate property owners using the data sources required by Section 1531 of the UPL was based on a misinterpretation of the statute, and Appellants’ suggested requirement that the Controller use additional databases exceeded due process requirements; (2) Appellants’ argument that the Controller’s pre-escheat notice process is inadequate because it is carried out by companies that received a portion of the escheated value and therefore have a conflict of interest was not supported by law or the alleged facts; and (3) Appellants’ challenged to the post-escheat procedure was not ripe for review. View "Taylor v. Chiang" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought suit after some plaintiffs were threatened with arrest and one plaintiff was arrested for chanting loudly in protest of an organized walk by public officials and others through Los Angeles’ Skid Row. Plaintiffs challenged a California statutory scheme pertaining to public protests. The district court granted summary judgment for the City of Los Angeles. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Cal. Penal Code 403, which makes it a misdemeanor to willfully disturb any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character with some exceptions, is not unconstitutionally vague or an unconstitutional restriction on speech; but (2) section 403 was unconstitutionally applied to Plaintiffs’ activities, as the statute did not cover the meeting at issue here, and therefore, section 403 did not criminalize Plaintiffs’ conduct. View "CPR for Skid Row v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who is disabled and uses a wheelchair, filed suit against Flava Enterprises Inc., a retail clothing store, alleging that a bench in the dressing room that was longer than forty-eight inches and ran along the entire length of the dressing room wall prevented him from making a diagonal transfer onto the bench from his wheelchair in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court granted summary judgment for Flava’s on all of Plaintiff’s ADA claims. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the bench did not comply with the 1991 ADA Accessibility Guidelines’s (ADAAG) mandate but did qualify as an “equivalent facilitation” under the ADAAG because Plaintiff could make a parallel transfer; and (2) because the bench complied with the 1991 standards and had not been altered since March 15, 2012, it fell within a safe harbor and was not required to comply with the more recent ADAAG standards promulgated in 2010. View "Kohler v. Flava Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

After City of Glendale police officers arrested Plaintiff for an alleged assault on his father-in-law, Plaintiff’s wife and one of the police officers began a sexual relationship. Plaintiff was charged with two counts of drug possession, which were later dismissed for lack of probable cause, and assault and elder abuse, of which Plaintiff was acquitted. The City subsequently terminated the police officer. Plaintiff brought an action against the City and the police officers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) there was probable cause to arrest and prosecute Plaintiff for assault and elder abuse, and the police officer’s later misconduct did not undermine the existence of probable cause; (2) the district court did not err in granting summary judgment as to the individual defendants on the malicious prosecution claim arising from the drug possession charge because Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a Fourth Amendment seizure; and (3) because Plaintiff’s section 1983 claims against the police officers failed, his municipality liability claim also necessarily failed. View "Yousefian v. City of Glendale" on Justia Law