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

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of KPMG's motion to intervene, and modifying a protective order so that a deposition transcript would be held in escrow rather than destroyed. This case stemmed from plaintiff's suit against Merrill Lynch and Thomas Mazzucco for their advice in connection with an initial public offering of Buy.com (the "federal action"). Plaintiff then sued KPMG (the "state action"), claiming that but for KPMG's advice he would have sold all his shares in Buy.com in 1998 for $400 million. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding KPMG's motion to intervene timely; in granting the motion to intervene where plaintiff failed to establish that KPMG's intervention to modify the protective order with regard to one document would result in prejudice; and in modifying the protective order to hold the transcript in escrow. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Blum v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Nicaraguan citizen, sought review of two decisions by the BIA: (1) a decision reversing an IJ's grant of withholding of removal pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and (2) a decision affirming the IJ's finding that petitioner's conviction for lewd and lascivious acts with a child under the age of 14, in violation of California Penal Code 288(a), was a particularly serious crime, rendering him statutorily ineligible for withholding of removal. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that petitioner's appeal from the denial of withholding of removal presented a live case or controversy. The court granted the petition for review of the BIA's determination that petitioner committed a particularly serious crime and remanded with instructions that the agency engage in a case-specific analysis in accordance with Matter of Frentescu to determine whether his conviction was a particularly serious crime. The court denied the petition for review of the BIA's denial of petitioner's claim for relief under the CAT because substantial evidence supported the BIA's finding that petitioner failed to establish a clear probability of torture. All pending motions in this case were denied. View "Blandino-Medina v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal for failure to demonstrate good moral character. Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(7) on the ground that it violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Petitioner argued that section 1101(f)(7) presumed an individual to lack good moral character based solely on the length of time served in prison, rather than on the nature of the underlying criminal conduct. Given the wide variation in sentences imposed by different States for the same conduct, petitioner argued that section 1101(f)(7) allowed disparate treatment of similarly situated individuals. The court rejected petitioner's challenge, concluding that there were plausible reasons for Congress' action. Congress could rationally conclude that the expense and other difficulties of individual determinations justified the inherent imprecision of a prophylactic rule. The court also rejected petitioner's contention that section 1101(f)(7) violated equal protection principles because it relied on the period of incarceration generated by state sentencing regimes that were not uniform in operation. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Romero-Ochoa v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against defendants alleging that he was unlawfully arrested and searched in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff was arrested for trespass under California Penal Code 602.8 because he was standing by himself inside a playground that was surrounded by a fence that had "No Trespassing" signs posted at every entrance. The court rejected defendants' argument that the grounds for custodial arrest specified in California Penal Code 853.6(i) applied not only to misdemeanors but also to infractions. Consistent with precedent, the statute's plain language, the rule against superfluity, and other persuasive authority, the court held that California Penal Code 853.5 provided the exclusive grounds for custodial arrest of a person arrested for an infraction. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff's state law false arrest claim and remanded for further proceedings. If there are no further issues pertaining to liability on this claim, the district court should enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and proceed to a trial on damages. The court rejected plaintiff's remaining contentions. View "Edgerly v. City and County of San Francisco, et al" on Justia Law

ANI, a risk retention group, filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Commissioner and the Division of Insurance under 42 U.S.C. 1983. ANI claimed that an order of the Commissioner violated the Liability Risk Retention Act (LRRA), 15 U.S.C. 3902(a)(1). The court held that the Commissioner's Order, which barred ANI from writing first dollar liability insurance policies in Nevada, was preempted by the LRRA. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's entry of declaratory and injunctive relief in favor of ANI. However, the LRRA did not confer a right to be free from state law that could be enforced under 42 U.S.C. 1983, making fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988 unavailable. Thus, the court vacated the fee award. Finally, the court remanded so that the district court could enter a new summary judgment order consistent with this opinion. View "Alliance of Nonprofits for Ins. v. Kipper, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant, a prison inmate, filed suit challenging his validation as an "associate" of the Mexican Mafia, a recognized prison gang. The court held that defendant's void-for-vagueness challenge of Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, 3378(c)(4), an administrative regulation that guides officials in validating inmates as gang affiliates, failed because section 3378(c)(4) clearly indicated to defendant that his conduct could result in validation. Although the district court should have evaluated whether defendant was validated based on "some evidence," remand was not required to correct the error. The evidence in the record showed that prison officials relied on "some evidence" to validate defendant as an associate of the Mexican Mafia gang. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Castro v. Terhune, et al" on Justia Law

This dispute arose from California's implementation of a change to Medicare in 2006. The Centers argued that California mishandled the shift in payment responsibility for dual-eligibles' prescription drug costs from state Medicaid programs to the new, federal Medicare Part D Program. The Centers brought suit for declaratory and injunctive relief. Among other things, the Centers urged the federal courts to declare unlawful California's "seizure" of the Centers' Medicare Part D funds, in excess of what would be owed under the per-visit rate for the Centers' expenses. The court concluded that the Eleventh Amendment barred the Centers' claims for retroactive monetary relief; the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Centers' claims to the extent that they sought money damages; however, the court reversed the district court and remanded to allow the district court to assess Ex parte Young's application to the Center's remaining claims. View "North East Medical Services v. CA Dept. of Health" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a Title VII action against her former employer, West Coast, claiming sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge. The district court granted summary judgment to West Coast and plaintiff appealed. Because the court concluded that the evidence, viewed favorably to plaintiff, did not show sexual harassment that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms of plaintiff's employment and subject her to an abusive environment, the court affirmed the judgment for West Coast on her sexual harassment claim. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to raise a material question of fact as to whether plaintiff's July 14 complaints - which the court already said could be protected activity - were a but-for cause of her termination. Therefore, the court believed that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the retaliation claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Westendorf v. West Coast Contractors of NV" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued the City of Lancaster under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Article I, Section 4 of the California Constitution, requesting declaratory and injunctive relief from the City's policy of permitting prayers that mention Jesus. Plaintiffs argued that both the invocation at issue and the City's prayer policy amounted to an establishment of religion. The invocation did not proselytize, advance, or disparage any faith. The court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the City, through its prayer practice, placed its official seal of approval on Christianity where the City has taken every feasible precaution to ensure its own evenhandedness. Therefore, the court held that the district court correctly determined that neither the invocation at issue nor the City's prayer policy constituted an unconstitutional establishment of religion. For the same reasons that plaintiffs' First Amendment claim failed, their state claim failed as well. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rubin, et al v. City of Lancaster" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against the Chief of Police and the City under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging a First Amendment retaliation claim. Plaintiff, a police officer for the City, led a no-confidence vote of the police officers' union against the Chief. The Chief subsequently delayed signing an application for a certification that would have entitled plaintiff to a five percent salary increase. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, concluding that plaintiff failed to meet his burden under Garcetti v. Ceballos, to show that he undertook his act as a private citizen and not pursuant to his official duties. The court disagreed and held that plaintiff had established a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation. Therefore, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Chief and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City because plaintiff did not adduce sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment on his Monnell claim. View "Ellins v. City of Sierra Madre, et al" on Justia Law