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

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

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