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

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against Ford, alleging that Ford breached implied and express warranties and committed fraud in the sale of Ford Focus vehicles containing rear suspension defects. The court concluded that the district court's order granting summary judgment as to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code 1792, claims of plaintiffs is reversed in light of Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co. Mexia held that “latent defects” may breach the implied warranty even when they are not discovered within the implied warranty’s duration. The court reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment as to the express warranty claims of plaintiffs given the ambiguous terms of Ford's express warranty. Finally, the court reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment on plaintiff's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code 1770(a), and Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, because plaintiffs have raised a genuine issue of fact as to reliance. The court declined to address additional issues raised by Ford. Because the court reversed plaintiffs’ implied and express warranty claims, the court also reversed the district court’s order granting summary judgment as to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301–2312, claims. View "Daniel v. Ford Motor Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, owners of a rare coin known as a "Brasher Doubloon," alleging claims for quantum meruit, fraud, breach of contract, constructive trust, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Plaintiff offered to sell defendants information that would prove that their coin was the first legal-tender coin struck pursuant to an Act of Congress. After plaintiff gave defendants the information, defendants denied payment. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. The court concluded that the Coin was not, as plaintiff theorized, legal tender struck pursuant to the Act Regulating Foreign Coins, and For Other Purposes, ch. 5. 1 Stat. 300. Plaintiff could not recover because he had not provided the information he alleged he was required to provide pursuant to the parties’ agreement. Further, the court concluded that plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) because he failed to identify what specific facts a deposition of Defendant Contursi would have revealed that would have precluded summary judgment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Swoger v. Rare Coins Wholesalers" on Justia Law

The County of Orange, California (County) filed a breach of contract action in federal district court against Tata American International Corporation after Tata America did not perform its obligations under the contract to the County’s satisfaction. The complaint included a jury trial demand. Tata America moved to strike the County’s jury demand, arguing that the County waived its right to a jury trial by signing the contract, which contained a jury trial waiver. The district court granted Tata America’s motion to strike, concluding (1) federal law, rather than California law, governed the question of whether the County waived its right to a jury trial in federal court; and (2) the County knowingly and voluntarily waived its right to a jury trial. The Ninth Circuit granted the County’s petition for writ of mandamus, holding (1) the federalism principle announced in Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins requires federal courts sitting in diversity to import state law governing jury trial waivers where, as here, state law is more protective than federal law of the jury trial right; and (2) under California law, the parties’ contractual jury trial waiver was unenforceable, and therefore, the district court erroneously deprived the County of a jury trial when it granted Tata America’s motion to strike. View "County of Orange v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal." on Justia Law

In this putative nationwide class action Plaintiffs claimed that they were deceived into purchasing Defendants’ “natural” cosmetics, which contained allegedly synthetic and artificial ingredients. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and damages under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, California’s unfair competition and false advertising laws, and common law theories of fraud and quasi-contract. The district court dismissed the quasi-contract cause of action for failure to state a claim and dismissed the state law claims under the primary jurisdiction doctrine so that the parties could seek expert guidance from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding (1) the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not expressly preempt California’s state law causes of action that create consumer remedies for false or misleading cosmetics labels; (2) although the district court properly invoked the primary jurisdiction doctrine, it erred by dismissing the case rather than staying proceedings while the parties sought guidance from the FDA; and (3) the district court erred in dismissing the quasi-contract cause of action as duplicative of or superfluous to Plaintiffs’ other claims. View "Astiana v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc." on Justia Law

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

In 2007, MTB Enterprises, Inc. obtained a $17 million construction loan from financial institution ANB Financial. ANB thereafter failed, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation transferred the construction loan to ADC Venture 2011-2, LLC. In 2012, MTB filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho against ADC Venture alleging that ADC Venture assumed the obligations of ANB Financial and was therefore liable for breach of contract and damages from MTB’s failed construction venture. The district court dismissed MTB’s claims. The Ninth Circuit dismissed MTB’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding (1) the rule set forth in the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 that a claimant must sue in the district court where the failed bank’s principal place of business was located or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is a jurisdictional limitation on federal court review; and (2) because the United States District Court for the District of Idaho lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case from the start, the case must be dismissed. View "MTB Enters., Inc. v. ADC Venture 2011-2, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a resident of California, and Defendant, a resident of Michigan, worked together with a third man to develop and market an electrolyte for use in hydrogen fuel cells. When Plaintiff and the third man sold the electrolyte technology without telling Defendant, Defendant threatened to sue if he was not paid what he claimed was his one-third share of the proceeds under an oral agreement. Thereafter, Plaintiff sued Defendant in California seeking a declaration that no oral agreement existed between the parties and for damages for intentional interference with a sales contract. The district court dismissed the suit, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction over Defendant on either of the two claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Defendant neither purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in California nor expressly aimed his conduct at California, the district court did not err in dismissing the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. View "Picot v. Weston" on Justia Law

At issue in this shareholder class action was the Schwab Total Bond Market, a mutual fund (the Fund). The Fund was created by Schwab Investments (“Schwab Trust”), and its investment adviser was Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (“Schwab Advisor”). The named plaintiff, a registered investment advisery and financial planning firm that had over 200,000 shares of the Fund under its management, filed the class action on behalf of investors who alleged that the managers of the Fund failed to adhere to the Fund’s fundamental investment objectives. The district court dismissed the complaint. The Ninth Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, holding (1) Northstar had standing to prosecute this case; (2) the district judge erred in dismissing Northstar’s breach of contract claims, as Northstar adequately alleged the formation of a contract between the investors and the trustees; (3) the district judge erred in concluding that Northstar failed to successfully allege a breach of any duty owed directly to Fund investors and that those claims would have to be asserted derivatively; and (4) the district judge erred in dismissing Northstar’s third-party beneficiary breach of contract claim, as Northstar adequately alleged that the investors were third-party beneficiaries of the Investment Advisory and Administration Agreement between Schwab Trust and Schwab Advisor. View "Northstar Fin. Advisors v. Schwab Investments" on Justia Law

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) was appointed to act as receiver for the assets of First Heritage Bank, N.A. (“Heritage”). Heritage had previously purchased, pursuant to an agreement (“Agreement”), interest in a commercial loan that Professional Business Bank (“PBB”) had made to Al’s Garden Art, Inc. The FDIC subsequently sold Heritage’s interest under the Agreement to Commerce First Financial, Inc. (“CFF”). When Al’s Garden Art defaulted on its loan obligations, PBB sued to collect on the loan. CFF then brought a breach of contract action against PBB. PBB filed a third party complaint against the FDIC, alleging that the FDIC’s failure to satisfy the Agreement’s pre-receivership contractual provisions constituted breach of contract. The FDIC moved to dismiss on the grounds that the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (“FIRREA”) preempted PBB’s claims. The district court denied the motion and granted summary judgment for PBB. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the FDIC, in its role of receiver of a closed bank, may not breach underlying asset contractual obligations without consequence. View "Bank of Manhattan, N.A. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp." on Justia Law

This case arose when plaintiffs signed an Asset Purchase Agreement to purchase a Mercedes-Benz dealership from Asbury. Plaintiffs filed suit against MB after MB exercised a right of first refusal (ROFR) contained in its dealership agreement with Asbury. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. The court concluded that, because MB exercised its ROFR, plaintiffs have no claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, which requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that MB committed a legal wrong independent from the interference; nor can MB's conduct be considered wrongful and plaintiffs have no claim for intentional interference with contract; plaintiffs have no claim for fraudulent concealment where plaintiffs misinterpreted the Acknowledgement Agreement as a guaranty and because the purportedly concealed facts of that agreement were not material and had been disclosed already to plaintiffs or were readily discoverable; even if plaintiffs were entitled to notice from MB of its exercise of the ROFR, the notic eplaintiffs received was both timely and in proper form; because plaintiffs have an implied right of action under California Vehicle Code 11713.3(t)(6), the court reversed summary judgment as to this claim; and the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to MB on plaintiffs' claim under California's Unfair Competition Statute, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Fresno Motors v. Mercedes-Benz" on Justia Law