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

Petitioner appealed the denial of benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C. 901-950, for injuries he sustained after falling off a dock while attempting to urinate while intoxicated. The court concluded that an injury "occasioned solely by" intoxication means that the legal cause of the injury was intoxication, regardless of the surface material of the landing on which the intoxicated person fell; the court rejected petitioner's broad definition of the term "injury;" the Board did not err in concluding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's conclusions; there was no error in the Board's conclusion that petitioner's employer did not have to "rule out" all other possible causes of injury in order to rebut the presumption under section 920(c); and the Board correctly concluded that the ALJ's decision to deny disability benefits, based on the record as a whole, was proper. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Schwirse v. Director, OWCP" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued defendant and the Church in Japan, alleging that they had tortiously induced her to transfer nearly all of her assets to the Church. After the Japanese courts awarded plaintiff a tort judgment, the Church contended that the judgment imposed liability for its religious teachings in violation of its constitutional right to free exercise of religion. The court affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff, holding that the district court's recognition and enforcement of the judgment did not constitute "state action" triggering direct constitutional scrutiny. The court also held that neither the Japanese judgment nor the cause of action on which it was based rose to the level of repugnance to the public policy of California or of the United States that would justify a refusal to enforce the judgment under California's Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 1713-1724. View "Ohno v. Yasuma" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought to hold the city liable for injuries caused by the negligence of a tribal police officer based on the theory that the city had a "non-delegable" duty to provide law enforcement services to the community. Plaintiffs were ordered by the officer to ride on the back of a four-wheeler after he found plaintiffs violating a curfew ordinance. Plaintiffs alleged that they were thrown off the four-wheeler and injured when the officer lost control. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the city because the officer was immune from individual liability for plaintiffs' tort claims, both under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 1346(b), and the tribe's sovereign immunity. Because the officer was immune, plaintiffs' claims against the city for his negligence failed since those claims were based on the city's vicarious liability for the officer's negligence. View "M.J. v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to one count of income tax evasion and three counts of wire fraud. Petitioner, the victim of defendant's crimes, petitioned for a writ of mandamus pursuant to The Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771. The court concluded that petitioner's request for restitution was not yet ripe. Because defendant's sentencing was still pending, petitioner was not currently entitled to restitution. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "In re: Stake Center Locating, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Amy and Vicky, child pornography victims, petitioned for a writ of mandamus pursuant to the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771. The court concluded that the district court did not commit legal error or abuse its discretion in declining to impose joint and several liability in this case. Petitioners' request that this court overrule United States v. Kennedy, which required a court to identify a causal connection between the defendant's offense conduct and the victim's specific losses before awarding restitution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2259, was previously considered and denied. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. View "In re: Amy & Vicky, et al v. USDC, Sacramento" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs claimed that PacifiCare was not entitled to any reimbursement payments out of the wrongful death benefits paid by an insurance policy to them. PacifiCare counterclaimed, arguing that it was entitled to reimbursement under both the terms of its contract with the deceased (Count I) and directly under the Medicare Act (Count 11), 42 U.S.C. 1395. At issue was whether a private Medicare Advantage Organization (MAO) plan could sue a plan participant's survivors, seeking reimbursement for advanced medical expenses out of the proceeds of an automobile insurance policy. Because interpretation of the federal Medicare Act presented a federal question, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether that act created a cause of action in favor of PacifiCare against plaintiffs. The district court properly dismissed the causes of action arising under the Medicare Act for failure to state a claim where section 1395y(b)(2) did not create a federal cause of action in favor of a MAO and where, under section 1395y(b)(3)(A), the Private Cause of Action applied in the case of a primary plan which failed to provide for primary payment, which was not applicable in this instance. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Count II for failure to state a claim as well as its decision to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count 1. View "Parra v. Pacificare of Arizona" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Trump University for, among other things, deceptive business practices. Trump University counterclaimed against plaintiff for defamation based on the statements in letters and Internet postings plaintiff had made. Plaintiff then moved under California's "anti-SLAPP" (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) law, California Code of Civil Procedure 425.16, to strike the defamation claim. At issue on appeal was whether Trump University, a private, for-profit entity purporting to teach Trump's "insider success secrets," was itself a public or limited public figure so as to implicate the First Amendment. The court concluded that Trump University was a limited public figure for the limited purpose of the public controversy over the quality of the education it purported to provide, and to prevail here, must demonstrate that plaintiff acted with actual malice. Because the district court erred by failing to recognize Trump University's status as a limited public figure, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Makaeff, et al v. Trump University" on Justia Law

In 2001, petitioner fell from a barge to a dry dock while working as a ship laborer. He then filed a workers' compensation claim under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 901-950, for the injuries from his fall. In 2003, petitioner shot himself in the head, causing severe injuries. Petitioner also sought compensation for these injuries under the Act, alleging that his suicide attempt resulted from his 2001 fall and the litigation over that claim. The Benefits Review Board subsequently affirmed the ALJ's denial of benefits. The court held, however, that evidence that a claimant planned his suicide did not necessarily preclude compensation under the Act because the proper inquiry was whether the claimant's work-related injury caused him to attempt suicide. In this case, the ALJ erroneously applied the irresistible impulse test instead of the chain of causation test. Therefore, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the question was whether there was a direct and unbroken chain of causation between petitioner's work-related injury and his suicide attempt. View "Kealoha v. Office of Workers Comp. Programs" on Justia Law

Firebaugh claimed that a lack of adequate drainage in part of the Central Valley Project (CVP) caused poor quality water flow into its service area. Firebaugh argued that Interior should be ordered to provide the necessary drainage or, alternatively, to pay money damages. The court held that Interior's broad discretion in matters of drainage precluded both claims. Firebaugh's proposals did not involve discrete actions that Interior was legally required to take; rather, they involved matters of discretion and, as such were beyond the scope of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(1). Providing irrigation water without concomitantly providing adequate drainage for it was a discretionary function and, therefore, not actionable under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2674. View "Firebaugh Canal Water District, et al v. United States, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the district court's denial of restitution to them and others who asserted that they have been harmed as a result of the offenses for which Frederick Scott Salyer had been convicted. Petitioners petitioned for a writ of mandamus filed pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771. The court concluded that the district court committed legal error in denying restitution because of Salyer's claimed financial status and the potential availability of civil remedies. To the extent that the district court's denial of restitution rested on a determination that complex issues of fact would complicate or prolong the sentencing process, the record was unclear as to whether the district court conducted the balancing test required by 18 U.S.C. 3663A(c)(3) and determined from facts on the record that the burden on the sentencing process of determining restitution would outweigh the need to provide restitution to victims. Accordingly, the court granted the petition and remanded with instructions. View "In re: Morning Star Packing Co. v. USDC, Sacramento" on Justia Law