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

In this appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether the renewal of forty-one water supply contracts by the United States Bureau of Reclamation violated section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and illegally threatened the existence of the delta smelt. The contracts at issue fell into two groups: (1) users who obtained water from the Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC contracts), and (2) parties who claimed to hold water rights senior to those held by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation with regard to a Central Valley Project and who previously entered into settlement contracts with the Bureau (settlement contractors). The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the DMC contracts and that Plaintiffs' claims against the settlement contractors failed because the contracts were not discretionary and were thus exempted from section 7(a)(2) compliance. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding that Plaintiffs lacked standing with regard to the contracts and that section 7(a)(2) of the ESA did not apply to the settlement contracts. View "Natural Res. Defense Council v. Salazar" on Justia Law

Four mobile home park owners appealed the dismissal of their suit under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA), 42 U.S.C. 3604, 3617, challenging a city zoning ordinance prohibiting any mobilehome park currently operating as senior housing from converting to all-age housing. The court held that because the FHAA was silent on whether such senior housing zones were permissible and because federal regulations allow for them, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

This case stemmed from a dispute that arose after a 20 year lease program ended in which Polar Star owned 300 units of family housing located on Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska. Polar Star leased the units back to the Air Force but the parties could not agree on the purchase price or the amount of rent payable for an additional year on the lease. The United States first sent notice of a one-year renewal of the lease, then filed a protective eminent domain action to condemn a five-month leasehold in the houses. Polar Star subsequently appealed a number of the district court's rulings. The court held that the district court correctly decided that the government's notice of renewal successfully renewed the Project Lease for one year; the district court's finding that the expiration date of the Ground Lease was the error, and therefore the lease ran for 23 years, was not clearly erroneous; the district court correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the amount of rent due from the Government to Polar Star on the renewal; Polar Star did not file an action in district court, so the only matter before the court was the Government's condemnation action; the district court correctly determined that the condemnation action should be dismissed; Polar Star's entitlement to rent beyond what the Government paid was not asserted on a claim or counterclaim in the district court; and plaintiffs may be entitled to pursue a claim in the Court of Federal Claims. Accordingly, the district court's judgment of dismissal was affirmed.

Plaintiff foster children appeal the dismissal of their class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, in which they alleged that the caseloads of the Sacramento County Dependency Court and court-appointed attorneys were so excessive as to violate federal and state constitutional and statutory provisions. The district court abstained from adjudicating plaintiff's claims. The court held that the district court properly abstained from consideration of the claims plaintiff raised here based on O'Shea v. Littleton. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.

This case arose from the tragic February 2007 crash of an Army Special Operations Aviation Regiment helicopter in Afghanistan. Plaintiffs, who include those injured and the heirs of those killed in the crash, appealed from the district court's dismissal of AT Engine Controls (ATEC) for lack of personal jurisdiction and from the court's summary judgment in favor of The Boeing Company (Boeing), Honeywell International, Inc. (Honeywell), and Goodrich Pump and Engine Control (Goodrich) (collectively, contractors). The court considered each of plaintiffs' arguments challenging the district court's dismissal of ATEC for lack of personal jurisdiction and its summary judgment in favor of the contractors, finding none of these arguments persuasive. The court also held that because the government contractor defense barred each of plaintiffs' state-law claims, the court need not consider the contractors' alternative argument, based on the combatant activities exception, for upholding the district court's summary judgment. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

Pinnacle Armor, Inc. ("Pinnacle") produced armor designed to protect buildings, vehicles, and the human body. Among Pinnacle's primary customers were local law enforcement agencies who depended in large part upon a federal subsidy to purchase the body arbor. The federal subsidy was conditioned on certification that the manufacturer's body armor was compliant with standards set by the National Institute of Justice ("NIJ"). Pinnacle alleged that the NIJ's decision to revoke certification of one of its products violated its procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment and was arbitrary and capricious in violation of 706(2)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. 701(a)(2). The court held that the due process claims were properly dismissed because the NIJ afforded Pinnacle adequate process. The court also held that the NIJ's certification decision was not committed to agency discretion by law and was therefore reviewable under the APA where Pinnacle's claims were sufficient to survive a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) claim.