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

Petitioners challenged the district court's denial of restitution and filed a petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771. The court held that the district court did not err in imposing a proximate cause requirement when applying 18 U.S.C. 2259(b)(3) and, in this respect, the petition was denied. The court's review of the record demonstrated that petitioners provided sufficient evidence to establish a causal connection between defendant's offense and petitioner's losses. Accordingly, the court granted the petition in part. View "Amy & Vicky v. USDC-SAC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, investors in Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme, brought a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2674 et seq., action against the SEC and the Government. On appeal, the court held that the district court correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction within the "discretionary function" exception to the United State's waiver of sovereign immunity in section 2680(a) of the FTCA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment of dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and adopted parts of the district court's opinion as its own. The court also held that the additional allegations made in the Second Amended Complaint were insufficient to overcome the discretionary function exception to the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity. Finally, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' request for additional discovery. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Dichter-Mad Family Partners, et al v. USA" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a California resident, brought a putative class action against ADT in California Superior Court, alleging that ADT recorded his telephone conversation with an ADT representative without his consent in violation of Section 632 of California's invasion of privacy law, Cal. Penal Code 632. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on diversity grounds. The court agreed with the district court's conclusion that plaintiff's pleadings failed to state a plausible claim upon which relief could be granted. The court remanded, however, in order to give plaintiff an opportunity to seek to amend his complaint to successfully plead a cause of action under the federal standards set forth in Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly. View "Faulkner v. ADT Security Services, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an action in district court under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by an officer's warrantless entry into her front yard and sought damages for her injuries. Plaintiff sustained serious injuries as a result of the officer's act of kicking down the front gate of her yard while in pursuit of a suspect who had committed at most a misdemeanor offense. The district court found that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity and granted his motion for summary judgment. The court held, however, that the law at the time of the incident would have placed a reasonable officer on notice that his warrantless entry into the curtilage of a home constituted an unconstitutional search, which could not be excused under the exigency or emergency exception to the warrant requirement. Therefore, the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity and the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "Sims v. Stanton" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed the district court's entry of judgment in favor of plaintiffs following a jury trial resolving plaintiff's claim that his mesothelioma was caused by occupational exposure to asbestos. Defendants contended that the district court abused its discretion by improperly admitting expert evidence. The court held that the district court did abuse its discretion when it failed to conduct a Daubert hearing or otherwise make relevance and reliability determinations regarding the expert testimony. The court held that the court's decision in Mukhtar v. California State University dictated that a new trial be provided in this circumstance. View "Barabin v. AstenJohnson Inc" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Austrian-owned OBB after sustaining personal injuries as a result of her attempt to board a moving train in Innsbruck. In this case, the court considered what acts could be attributed to a foreign state in applying the commercial activity exception to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1602 et seq. The court concluded that Rail Pass Experts' sale of the Eurorail pass could not, under Doe v. Holy See, be imputed to OBB. Plaintiff did not allege a day-to-day, routine involvement of OBB in Eurorail, much less Rail Pass Experts. Therefore, the court held that OBB engaged in no commercial activity within the United States that would strip it of its immunity. View "Sachs v. Republic of Austria, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Merck in their diversity action alleging wrongful death. Plaintiffs' son died after being administered a Measles, Mumps, and Rubella vaccine manufactured by Merck. On appeal, plaintiffs contended that the district court erred in applying the standards of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-22, to their individual claims for damages. Having concluded that Section 22 of the Act generally applied to limit tort liability in a parent's claim for individual injuries, the court determined that plaintiffs' suit was a "civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine" and thus limited by the Act. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Holmes, et al. v. Merck & Co., Inc." on Justia Law

Joseph Tracy appealed the Benefits Review Board's determination that injuries he incurred in part during his employment by Global International Offshore Ltd. from 1998-2002 were not covered under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 901-950. Because the court held that no portion of Tracy's employment during this period satisfied the Act's status and situs test, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Keller Foundation/Case FNDN, et al v. Tracy, et al; Tracy, Jr. v. Director, Workers' Compensation Programs" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought suit against the manufacturer of an electronic control device - commonly known as a "taser" - and sued police officers for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state-law wrongful death. At issue was whether a police officer had used constitutionally excessive force by repeatedly deploying a taser against a combative suspect and whether the manufacturer of that device had provided sufficient warning that its repeated use could lead to death. The deceased suspect had gouged out the eye of a family member, attempting to exorcize her demons, when police officers arrived at the scene. The court held that the taser provided sufficient warning as a matter of law. The court also held that, although the officers used significant force in this case, it was justified by the considerable government interests at stake. Because the court concluded that the officers acted reasonably in using force, plaintiffs' state law claims against the officers for wrongful death could not succeed unless the use of the taser constituted deadly force and the use of the deadly force was not justified. The court concluded that it was not convinced that the use of the taser involved deadly force, but even if the taser qualified as deadly force, no reasonable jury could find that the circumstances here failed to justify the use of deadly force. View "Marquez, et al v. City of Phoenix, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff is a recognized figure in aviation history and defendants are retired commercial airline captains who became friends with plaintiff in the 1980s. Defendants sell aviation-related memorabilia, including items related to or signed by plaintiff. In 2008, plaintiff brought claims against defendants, including violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., California's common law right to privacy, and California's statutory right to publicity, Cal. Civ. Code 3344. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's order granting summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiff contended that the district court should not have struck his declaration, which contained comprehensive details he did not remember at his deposition. He also contended that, under California's single-publication rule, defendants "republished" statements about him on their website - when they modified unrelated information on their website. The court rejected both arguments and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Yeager, et al v. Bowlin, et al" on Justia Law