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

The Secretary of Labor filed a complaint against the State of Washington, Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), alleging that DSHS failed to pay overtime compensation to certain social workers in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of DSHS, concluding that the social workers come within the "learned professional" exemption of the FLSA's overtime pay requirements. The court held that because the social workers positions at issue required only a degree in one of several diverse academic disciplines or sufficient coursework in any of those disciplines, DSHS had not met its burden of showing that its social workers positions "plainly and unmistakably" met the regulatory requirement. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs, 134 farmers whose crops suffered as a result of the federal Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) use of the herbicide Oust, sued the federal government and Oust's manufacturer (DuPont). Both the jury and the district court allocated 60% of the fault to DuPont and 40% to the federal government. Both the government and DuPont appealed: the court resolved the government's appeal in this opinion and DuPont's appeal in a memorandum disposition filed simultaneously with this opinion. The court held that it lacked subject mater jurisdiction over plaintiffs' Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2402, claims because plaintiffs filed their lawsuit one day after the FTCA's statute of limitations had run. Therefore, the court held that the district court erred by not dismissing the claims against the federal government.

The State of Arizona appealed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction to prevent a state law from taking effect that would have terminated eligibility for healthcare benefits of state employees' same-sex partners. The district court found that plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits because they showed that the law adversely affected a classification of employees on the basis of sexual orientation and did not further any of the state's claimed justifiable interests. The district court also found that plaintiffs had established a likelihood of irreparable harm in the event coverage for partners ceased. The court held that the district court's findings and conclusions were supported by the record and affirmed the judgment.

Plaintiff filed a federal complaint against officers and the Mount Shasta Police Department pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they entered his home without a warrant and obtained evidence that he had driven under the influence of alcohol. Plaintiff had pled nolo contendere to a violation of California Vehicle Code section 23103.5(a). The district court dismissed plaintiff's section 1983 complaint, concluding that the case was barred by Heck v. Humphrey and that the district court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court held, however, that Heck did not bar the section 1983 claim where plaintiff's conviction derived from his plea, not from a verdict obtained with supposedly illegal evidence. The court also held that, even if the terms of plaintiff's appellate waiver were ambiguous, the court would construe that ambiguity against the government and conclude that the waiver in the plea agreement did not affect plaintiff's ability to pursue this separate civil law suit. The court further held that there was no collateral estoppel bar to plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim in this civil action. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded.

This case stemmed from plaintiff's detention as an undocumented immigrant where plaintiff claimed that various authorities deprived him of medication for his schizophrenia and that the detention resulted from the insufficient training of public defenders regarding the immigration consequences of criminal pleas. At issue was whether plaintiff properly exhausted his administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346, 2671-80, where the federal agencies denied plaintiff's administrative tort claims before he amended his complaint in an ongoing civil action to name the United States as a party and allege a new cause of action under the FTCA. The court held that the claims were properly exhausted but affirmed the district court's dismissal on the alternative ground that plaintiff stated FTCA claims that fell outside the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity. The court also affirmed the grant of summary judgment on plaintiff's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, premised on 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Monell v. Department of Social Services.

Plaintiff appealed the district court's decision granting defendants' motion to strike plaintiff's defamation suit under California's anti-SLAPP statute. Cal.Civ. Proc. Code 425.16. Plaintiff argued that the district court erred in concluding that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that various statements made by the county supervisor were false. Plaintiff also appealed the district court's order granting attorney's fee under California's anti-SLAPP statute. The court held that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that the "substance" of the county supervisor's statements were false. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees incurred by defendants in bringing both anti-SLAPP motions. Therefore, the court affirmed both decisions of the district court.

This case arose from a traffic stop for a seatbelt violation in which a Los Angeles County Sheriff pepper sprayed plaintiff and struck him with a baton after plaintiff exited his vehicle and disobeyed the Sheriff's order to reenter it. Plaintiff filed this action against the Sheriff and the county, claiming that the Sheriff's use of force was excessive under the Fourth Amendment and that the Sheriff's conduct constituted false imprisonment and negligence under California tort law. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Sheriff with respect to plaintiff's false imprisonment claim because the Sheriff had lawful authority to arrest plaintiff on account of his violation of Cal. Penal Code 148(a)(1). The court held, however, that the use of intermediate force was unreasonable and the suspect clearly posed no threat to the officer or the public safety. Therefore, the court reversed as to the dismissal of plaintiff's excessive force and negligence claims.

Petitioners challenged an order of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) concerning the proposed construction by the Port of Portland of a new runway at Hillsboro Airport (HIO). On appeal, petitioners argued that the decision not to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was unreasonable for several reasons, chief among them the FAA's failure to consider the environmental impacts of any increased demand for HIO resulting from the addition of a runway. Petitioners also argued that the FAA did not afford them a public hearing within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 47106. As a preliminary matter, the court addressed the Port's and the FAA's arguments that petitioners waived their claims because they failed to raise them during the public comment period. The court held, after finding that certain precedents did not apply here, that remand was necessary for the FAA to consider the environmental impact of increased demand resulting from the HIO expansion project, if any, pursuant to the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (NEPA), 40 C.F.R. 1508.8(b). The court also held that an EIS was not warranted based on petitioners' contention that the context and intensity of the project independently required an EIS. The court further held that petitioners' arguments regarding whether the FAA afforded them a public hearing was unpersuasive where the hearing afforded petitioners was a "public hearing" within the meaning of section 47106 and FAA Order 5050.4B. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded with instructions to the FAA to consider the environmental impact of increased demand resulting from the HIO expansion project pursuant to section 1508.8(b).

Plaintiffs, a class of economically vulnerable Arizonians who receive public health care benefits through the state's Medicaid agency, sued the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and the Director of Arizona's medicaid agency (director)(collectively, defendants), alleging that the heightened mandatory co-payments violated Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. 1396a, cost sharing restrictions, that the waiver exceeded the Secretary's authority, and that the notices they received about the change in their health coverage was statutorily and constitutionally inadequate. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that Medicaid cost sharing restrictions did not apply to plaintiffs and that Arizona's cost sharing did not violate the human participants statute. The court reversed the district court insofar as it determined that the Secretary's approval of Arizona's cost sharing satisfied the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 1315. The court remanded this claim with directions to vacate the Secretary's decision and remanded to the Secretary for further consideration. Finally, the court remanded plaintiffs' notice claims for further consideration in light of intervening events.

Appellant was the target of a grand jury investigation seeking to determine whether he used secret Swiss bank accounts to evade paying federal taxes. The district court granted a motion to compel appellant's compliance with a grand jury subpoena dueces tecum demanding that he produce certain records related to his foreign bank accounts. The court declined to condition its order compelling production upon a grant of limited immunity, and pursuant to the recalcitrant witness statute, 28 U.S.C. 1826, held appellant in contempt for refusing to comply. The court held that because the records sought through the subpoena fell under the Required Records Doctrine, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was inapplicable, and appellant could not invoke it to resist compliance with the subpoena's command. The court also held that because appellant's Fifth Amendment privilege was not implicated, it need not address appellant's request for immunity. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.