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

Plaintiff, a pro se California prisoner, filed suit against defendants alleging violations of her constitutional rights to due process of law and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff alleged that prison officials started rumors that she was a convicted sex offender and changed her prison records. As a result, gang members threatened plaintiff and, when plaintiff reported the problem, prison officials refused to file her grievance and rejected her appeal. The court concluded that, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. 1915(g), a court of appeals may require a three strike prisoner seeking in forma pauperis status to show an imminent danger at the time the notice of appeal is filed; the Andrews v. Cervantes standard is the appropriate one to be applied in determining whether a prisoner has shown an imminent danger on appeal, and that applying that standard to plaintiff’s case, she may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal; and the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants on the issue of exhaustion because defendants have not met their burden of establishing that defendant did not exhaust available administrative remedies. Accordingly, the court granted plaintiff's right to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The court vacated the order of the district court and remanded for further proceedings on the issue of exhaustion. View "Williams v. Paramo" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against EA, alleging that Madden NFL, a series of video games, includes accurate likenesses of plaintiffs without authorization, as well as roughly 6,000 other former NFL players who appear on more than 100 historic teams in various editions of Madden NFL. EA moved to strike the complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, California Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion where EA has not shown a probability of prevailing on its incidental use defense and its other defenses are effectively precluded by the court's decision in Keller v. Elec. Arts. In this case, EA has not shown that the transformative use defense applies to plaintiffs' claims; EA has not established a probability of prevailing on either the common law public interest defense or the "public affairs" exemption of California Civil Code 3344(d); the Rogers v. Grimaldi test does not apply to plaintiffs' right-of-publicity claims; and EA has not established a probability of prevailing on its incidental use defense. View "Davis v. Electronic Arts" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action suit against Old Republic, a company that sells home warranty plans, alleging that Old Republic arbitrarily denied claims made by him and a putative class of similarly situated policyholders of Old Republic plans, or otherwise cheated him and this class out of benefits owed under their policies. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's orders denying his motion for class certification, denying his motion for leave to amend his complaint, and granting Old Republic's motion for partial summary judgment. The court did not reach the merits of the district court's order because the appeal is moot. The parties settled all of plaintiff's claims and plaintiff expressly released all of his claims against Old Republic. Applying Narouz v. Charter Commc'sn, the court concluded that the appeal is moot because plaintiff has no financial interest or other personal interest whatsoever in class certification. View "Campion v. Old Republic Protection Co." on Justia Law

The City of Spokane filed suit against Fannie, Freddie, and FHFA, arguing that Fannie and Freddie are not statutorily exempt from paying real property transfer taxes. The court concluded that it is clear that the statutory carve-outs allowing for the taxation of real property as "other real property is taxed" encompass only property taxes, not excise taxes. Therefore, Fannie and Freddie are statutorily exempt from paying the transfer taxes in Washington. The court held that the entities' exemption statutes do not exceed Congress's constitutional authority. Because Congress has power under the Commerce Clause to regulate the secondary mortgage market, it has power under the Necessary and Proper Clause not only to create Fannie and Freddie but also to ensure their preservation by exempting them from state and local taxes. Finally, the exemptions neither commandeer state and local officials nor transgress general principles of federalism. Therefore, the court rejected Spokane's Tenth Amendment arguments. Accordingly, the court held that Congress exempted Fannie and Freddie from state and local taxation of real property transfers and that it had constitutional authority to do so. The court affirmed the judgment. View "City of Spokane v. Fed. Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the enforcement of the County of Los Angeles Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act ("Measure B"), Los Angeles County, Cal. Code tit. 11, div. 1, ch. 11.39, and amending tit. 22, div. 1, ch. 22.56.1925. Measure B imposes a permitting system and additional production obligations on the makers of adult films, such as requiring performers to wear condoms in certain contexts. The court concluded that it need not decide whether Intervenors satisfy the requirements of Article III standing where plaintiffs have standing. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting preliminary injunctive relief to only certain parts of Measure B, while allowing enforcement of other provisions as severable. The purpose of Measure B is twofold: (1) to decrease the spread of sexually transmitted infections among performers within the adult industry, (2) thereby stemming the transmission of sexually transmitted infections to the general population among whom the performers dwell. The court concluded that the district court properly exercised its discretion in concluding that the condom requirement would likely survive intermediate scrutiny where the restriction of expression in this case is de minimus; the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve the government's interest; and the condom requirement leaves alternative channels of expression available. The portions of Measure B's permitting system left in place by the district court also survives constitutional scrutiny where the requirements that adult film producers complete training about blood-borne pathogens and post a permit during shooting still serve the County's interest in preventing sexually transmitted infections. The district court correctly concluded that the remaining permitting provisions leave little, if any, discretion to government officials. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction with respect to the condom and permitting requirement. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Vivid Entertainment v. Fielding" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, family members of union leaders killed in Colombia by members of the Colombian National Army's 18th Brigade, filed suit against Occidental, alleging several causes of action, including three under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. 1350, contending that Occidental should be liable for the 18th Brigade's war crimes, crimes against humanity, and assorted torts arising out of the murder of the union leaders. The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) because it raised nonjusticiable political questions. The court affirmed, concluding that the facts of this case cannot be framed in such a way that severs the tie between the United States' and Occidental's funding of the CNA and the 18th Brigade. Plaintiffs' allegations are manifestly irreconcilable with the State Department's human rights certifications to Congress and the court remains bound by the Supreme Court's holding in Oetjen v. Cent. Leather Co. and Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc. View "Saldana v. Occidental Petroleum" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against justices of the Arizona Supreme Court challenging the Arizona Supreme Court Rule 34(f) (the AOM Rule). The AOM Rule permits admission on motion to the Arizona Bar for attorneys who are admitted to practice law in states that permit Arizona attorneys to be admitted to the bars of those states on a basis equivalent to Arizona’s AOM Rule, but requires attorneys admitted to practice law in states that do not have such reciprocal admission rules to take the uniform bar exam (UBE) in order to gain admission to the Arizona Bar. The court concluded that although plaintiffs can establish Article III standing based on injuries suffered by Plaintiff Girvin, plaintiffs failed to establish that the AOM Rule is unconstitutional on First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, or Privileges and Immunities Clause grounds. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the justices. View "NAAMJP V. Berch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the City, alleging claims of discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12112. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to demonstrate any pretext for discrimination based on his hearing impairment and his EEOC complaint where plaintiff presented no evidence that the City's reliance on past threats was actually pretext for discrimination and, even if the fit-for-duty evaluation somehow undermined the credibility of the City's stated concern about plaintiff's threats, the City put forward other reasons for terminating him: nonperformance of duties, conducting personal business at work, and making disparaging remarks about his supervisors and the City. Likewise, plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because he cannot show pretext. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the City. View "Curley v. City of North Las Vegas" on Justia Law

Alliance filed suit challenging the decision of the federal defendants, as well as MDOL, to permit recurring, low-altitude helicopter flights to haze bison in the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone. Alliance alleged that the federal defendants and MDOL have violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq., because they have failed to undertake the proper procedures for reevaluating the effect of helicopter hazing on Yellowstone grizzly bears and have not issued an incidental take permit for the alleged harassment of Yellowstone grizzly bears. The court reversed the district court's holding that Alliance lacked standing to bring its ESA and NEPA claims; reversed the district court's ruling that Alliance failed to comply with the ESA citizen suit 60-day notice provision; affirmed the dismissal of all of Alliance's ESA claims against Inspection Service and FWS as they were not included in the 60-day notice on which Alliance relies; affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the federal defendants and granted dismissal to MDOL on Alliance's ESA Section 7 claim as it is moot; affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the federal defendants and granted dismissal to MDOL on Alliance's Section 9 claim where no genuine issues of material fact exist in the record concerning whether a take of a Yellowstone grizzly bear has occurred or is likely to occur; and affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the federal defendants on the NEPA and NFMA claims. View "Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. USDA" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation (CASE) Act, Cal. Penal Code 290.015(a)(4)-(5), infringes their freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment. The district court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and defendants and intervenors appealed. The court applied intermediate scrutiny and concluded that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment challenge. The court concluded that registered sex offenders who have completed their terms of probation and parole enjoy the full protection of the First Amendment; First Amendment scrutiny is warranted because the Act imposes a substantial burden on sex offenders' ability to engage in legitimate online speech, and to do so anonymously; the Act unnecessarily chills protected speech in at least three ways: the Act does not make clear what sex offenders are required to report, there are insufficient safeguards preventing the public release of the information sex offenders do report, and the 24-hour reporting requirement is onerous and overbroad; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that all the necessary elements for obtaining a preliminary injunction are satisfied where there is irreparable injury sufficient to merit relief, and the balance of the equities and the public interest favor the exercise of First Amendment rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Doe v. Harris" on Justia Law