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

Plaintiff, a wheelchair user, filed suit against Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc. claiming that alleged barriers to access in Pier 1’s store in Vacaville, California denied him “full and equal” access to the store in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court entered a permanent injunction against Pier 1, concluding that the obstructions in shopping aisles and on a sales counter violated Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the obstructed aisles that Plaintiff encountered on his numerous visits to the Pier 1 store were not permissible “isolated or temporary interruptions in…access” under the ADA Accessibility Guidelines because the evidence showed that Pier 1 repeatedly failed to maintain accessible routes in its store; but (2) there was insufficient evidence that the obstructions on the sales counter violated Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA. Remanded to the district court to modify the injunction consistent with this opinion. View "Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc." on Justia Law

The City of Sunnyvale enacted an ordinance restricting the possession of “large-capacity magazines” - statutorily defined as any detachable ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds. Plaintiffs filed suit against the City and other individual defendants (collectively, Sunnyvale) challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance. Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the ordinance. The district court denied the motion. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Sunnyvale presented sufficient evidence to show that the ordinance was likely to survive intermediate scrutiny and that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they would likely succeed on the merits of their claim. View "Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who was wheelchair-bound and physically disabled, alleged that her access at three retail stores in a shopping mall was obstructed. Plaintiff settled her claims with a tenant defendant. Thereafter, the district court sua sponte issued an order that dismissed three defendants, concluding that the defendants were improperly joined because Plaintiff’s complaint did not allege that her injuries arose out of the same transaction or occurrence. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding (1) as originally filed, the landlord defendant was properly joined because it shared the common transaction or occurrence of a landlord-tenant relationship with the tenant defendant that settled with Plaintiff; and (2) the district court abused its discretion by dismissing rather than severing Plaintiff’s complaint against the two retail defendants without evaluating the prejudice to Plaintiff. Remanded. View "Rush v. Sport Chalet, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit amended an opinion and dissent filed on July 28, 2014 in which a panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed a conviction for attempting to enter the United States without consent after having been previously removed. Here the panel amended the opinion and dissent, denied a petition for panel rehearing, and denied a petition for rehearing en banc. Defendant collaterally attacked the underlying removal order, arguing that the immigration judge (IJ) erred in concluding that he had been convicted of an aggravated felony and therefore violated his right to due process by failing to advise him of his apparent eligibility for voluntary departure relief. The panel affirmed the conviction, holding (1) even if the IJ should have informed Defendant of his apparent eligibility for voluntary departure, Defendant was not prejudiced by the error, and therefore, the removal order was not fundamentally unfair under 8 U.S.C. 1326(d)(3); and (2) the conviction based on Defendant’s videotaped confession did not run afoul of the corpus delicti doctrine. View "United States v. Valdez-Novoa" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer, Sears, alleging three disability discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov't Code 12940(a). On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Sears. The court concluded that there are genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Sears terminated plaintiff because of his disability; that Sears declined to accommodate his disability; and that Sears did not engage in an interactive process to determine possible accommodation for his disability. In this case, plaintiff presented several state law claims that deserved trial and it should not take a whole lot of evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact in a disability discrimination case, at least where the fact issue on discrimination is genuine and the disability would not preclude gainful employment of a person working with accommodation. Moreover, it is entirely besides the point that some of plaintiff's evidence was self-serving, as it will often be the case in a discrimination case that an employee has something to say about what company representatives said to him or her. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Nigro v. Sears, Roebuck and Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair to move in public, filed suit against BB&B under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 2000a(b), for purported architectural barriers that plaintiff claimed impeded his ability to fully use the store. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to BB&B. The court concluded that the district court did not err in concluding that the ADA does not require wall space within the maneuvering clearance next to the frame of a restroom door that must be pulled open. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in ruling that, because the door lacked a "latch" within the meaning of standards governing ADA compliance, no maneuvering space was required next to the frame of a restroom door that must be pushed open. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a 55-year-old-man with disabilities that require him to use a wheelchair and two canes, filed suit against defendants, alleging that his new parole terms, including a housing restriction imposed under the California Sexual Predator and Control Act that required plaintiff to move from his residence, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.; and 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff claimed that defendants' decision to require him to live in motels that did not have accommodations for his disabilities caused him pain and stress, exacerbated his medical conditions, and deprived him of access to important medical treatments. The district court concluded that plaintiff's claims were time-barred under California's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. The court held, however, that the district court did not apply the correct statute of limitations standards with respect to the Title II and ADA claims; the district court must borrow the three-year limitations period applicable to claims under California Government Code 11135; under the three-year limitations period, plaintiff's ADA claim is not time-barred; and, although plaintiff does not contest the applicable limitations periods as to his other claims, the court held that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint with prejudice without allowing plaintiff leave to amend. Accordingly, reversed and remanded. View "Sharkey v. O'Neal" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit on behalf of her son, Philip Cortez, under 42 U.S.C. 1983, against a corrections officer and the State of Arizona after Cortez was attacked by two other inmates and sustained severe, permanent mental impairment. The court concluded that there are triable issues of material fact related to the officer's awareness of an objectively substantial risk of serious harm where the officer escorted Cortez and the other two inmates by himself through an isolated prison passage. All three inmates were mutually hostile, half-restrained, and high-security inmates. Further, there is sufficient evidence that the officer was subjectively aware of the risk involved in the escort and acted with deliberate indifference to Cortez's safety. The court also concluded that there are triable issues of material fact in regards to the gross negligence claim against the State where the State's gross negligence standard is lower than the federal deliberate indifference standard. Accordingly, the court remanded the district court's grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cortez v. Skol" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against I-Flow, manufacturer of the PainBuster continuous infusion pump, alleging state common law claims for negligence and strict products liability. Plaintiff alleged that I-Flow negligently failed to warn that its pain pump should not be used in intra-articular spaces such as the glenohumeral joint; and that I-Flow was strictly liable for selling a product that was unreasonably dangerous due to the lack of adequate warnings. The PainBuster is regulated under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (MDA) to the Food, Drug & Cosmetics Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(A)(i), (B), (C)(i). Concluding that it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal where judgment was entered as to all defendants, the court concluded that the requested jury instructions regarding negligence and federal standards were not preempted by the MDA. Therefore, the court remanded and declined to reach the evidentiary issues. The court dismissed I-Flow's cross appeal as moot. View "McClellan v. I-Flow Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, while incarcerated, received a $107,416.48 settlement from a medical liability claim against a drug manufacturer whose products caused him to develop diabetes. Counsel in the product liability suit deposited the settlement proceeds into plaintiff's inmate trust account. After the ODOC issued an order requiring plaintiff to pay $65,353.94 for the estimated cost of his incarceration and then subsequently froze and withdrew the funds at issue, plaintiff filed suit alleging various constitutional violations. The court concluded that plaintiff received insufficient due process as the result of Oregon's actions considering plaintiff's substantial interest, the risk of erroneous deprivation, and the ability to provide a hearing without compromising a significant government interest. Nor should providing a pre-deprivation hearing be administratively burdensome. However, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants considering no precedent established a state's obligation to provide a pre-deprivation hearing in these circumstances and thus, was not clearly established at the time of the conduct. Further, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim where the withdrawal was a reimbursement rather than a punishment. View "Shinault v. Hawks" on Justia Law