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

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault on a federal officer and illegally entering the United States. The court vacated the conviction for assault on a federal officer and remanded the case for a new trial. Defendant was deported during the pendency of the appeal. The government requested that the court affirm the conviction, without prejudice to a later request by him to vacate the conviction, should he return to the United States or waive his right to be physically present at retrial. The court saw no reason to apply United States v. Aguilar-Reyes, which only concerned resentencing. Given the government's authority to permit defendant to return for retrial, and counsel's assurances that defendant would be willing to do so, this case was unlikely to languish for an indefinite period before the district court, should the government choose to retry defendant. More importantly, defendant's conviction for assault on a federal officer will have been reversed, unless and until he should be retried, he must be presumed innocent of that charge. Accordingly, the court vacated in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. View "United States v. Barrios-Siguenza" on Justia Law

Eldee-K filed suit against DIRECTV, alleging that DIRECTV has a policy of installing satellite reception equipment in common areas of apartment buildings and other dwelling units without the landlord's consent. Eldee-K sought to certify a class of all landlords who own and lease residential multiple dwelling units in the United States on which DIRECTV installed equipment based on Part 2 of its installation form. The district court dismissed Eldee-K's claims with prejudice, holding that the local action doctrine deprived it of jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim where the key harm in the complaint related to trespass on real property situated in Connecticut. The court concluded that the local action doctrine was jurisdictional; the court was bound by California law as to when an action constituted a local action for purposes of considering the court's jurisdiction; Eldee-K's allegations and the relief sought in its complaint indicated that the essence of Eldee-K's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200-10, claim was a trespass, which was a local action under California law; and because the real property at issue is in Connecticut, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Eldee-K's action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Eldee-K Rental Properties v. DIRECTV" on Justia Law

PAMC appealed the district court's affirmance of the Secretary's decision denying PAMC its full Medicare Annual Payment Updated for the fiscal year 2009. PAMC claimed that the Department acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it refused to excuse PAMC's late filing of the required Reporting Hospital Quality Data for Annual Payment Updated (RHQDAPU) program data by the admittedly applicable deadline. The court concluded that PAMC neither pointed to any contrary or antithetical decisions by the Department under similar circumstances, nor otherwise demonstrated that the Board acted arbitrary or capriciously when it denied equitable relief. The court rejected PAMC's argument that the Board should have used the contract doctrine of substantial performance to excuse PAMC's failure to submit data at the proper time. The court did not view the Board's adherence to the policy of strict compliance with a deadline as arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "PAMC, LTD. v. Sebelius" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her convictions and sentence for wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering. Defendant and her then-husband were involved in a scheme to defraud customers by tricking them into making advanced payments for high-end kitchen appliances which were never delivered. The court rejected defendant's claim that the Faretta colloquy was rendered constitutionally deficient by the omission of an explicit warning about a potential conflict of interest, particularly because plaintiff's husband had no involvement in defendant's individual self-representation at this stage of the proceedings; defendant's waiver of the right to counsel was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; during trial, defendant's right to self-representation was not violated when she adopted the district court's suggestion to permit her husband to conduct her direct and re-direct examination; the evidence was sufficient to support her convictions for wire and mail fraud; the district court properly instructed the jury regarding the mens rea for these offenses; the evidence was insufficient to support defendant's convictions on two money laundering counts; and the jury was improperly instructed as to one of these charges. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for resentencing in light of the reversal of her convictions on the money laundering counts. View "United States v. French" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to illegal reentry to the United States. The court concluded that defendant's 1996 conviction for assaulting a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. 111(a) did not, categorically, qualify as a crime of violence because section 111(a) felony criminalizes a broader swath of conduct covered by U.S.S.G. 2L1.2's definition. The district court erred in applying the crime of violence enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's sentence and remanded for resentencing without the enhancement. View "United States v. Dominguez-Maroyoqui" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his conviction and sentence for being a deported alien found in the United States. The court concluded that the admission into evidence during his criminal trial of a Notice to Appear did not violate defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause where the statements in the Notice were not testimonial; the court rejected defendant's Confrontation Clause challenge to the admissibility of the certifications of authenticity for defendant's A-File documents; the district court did not err in calculating defendant's advisory range under U.S.S.G. 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) where his prior conviction of attempted murder and kipping under California law qualified as crimes of violence under the applicable categorical approach; and the court reaffirmed the continuing vitality of the court's precedents barring consideration of affirmative defenses as part of the categorical approach. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Albino-Loe" on Justia Law

CNS filed suit against defendant, the Executive Officer/Clerk of the Ventura County Superior Court, alleging that the Ventura County Superior Court's failure to provide same-day access to newly filed unlimited civil complaints violated its right of access to public judicial proceedings under the First Amendment. On appeal, CNS challenged the district court's order dismissing his complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court granted defendant's motion to abstain from hearing the case under Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., and O'Shea v. Littleton, which permitted the federal district courts to decline to decide matters over which they have jurisdiction but which implicated sensitive state interests. The court concluded that CNS's First Amendment right of access claim fell within the general rule against abstaining under Pullman in First Amendment cases. Though the government may sometimes withhold information without violating the expressive rights protected by the First Amendment, the First Amendment right of access to public proceedings was inextricably intertwined with the First Amendment right of free speech. It was well-established that the right of access to public records and proceedings was necessary to the enjoyment of the right to free speech. CNS's right of access claim implicated the same fundamental First Amendment interests as a free expression claim, and it equally commanded the respect and attention of the federal courts. Under either de novo review or the de novo component of the modified abuse of discretion standard applicable in most abstention cases, the court concluded that O'Shea abstention was also improper. An injunction requiring the Ventura County Superior Court to provide same-day access to filed unlimited civil complaints posed little risk of an ongoing federal audit or a major continuing intrusion of the equitable power of the federal courts into the daily conduct of state proceedings. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Courthouse News Service v. Planet" on Justia Law

Samsung filed suit alleging that defendant's SD card licenses were an anti-competitive agreement in restraint of trade in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1-7. At issue was the scope of the continuing violation exception to the four-year statute of limitations on private actions to enforce the antitrust laws. The court agreed with Samsung that defendants' committed two overt acts within the limitations period: the adoption of the 2006 license, which extended the license to cover the second-generation SD cards, and the attempt to enforce either license by collecting royalty payments from Samsung. The court held that, even if the 2006 license was merely a restatement of the 2003 license, the application of the licenses to Samsung when it began to make SD cards in the fall of 2006 was also an overt act that restarted the limitations period. Because the harm Samsung challenged in this suit was speculative at the time of the initial wrong, the law of limitations in federal antitrust actions allowed Samsung to file suit once the harm crystallized in 2006. Because the court concluded that the federal antitrust claims were timely, the court vacated the district court's dismissal of the state law claims and remanded. Construing the district court's order as an implicit dismissal of the equitable claim, the court vacated that dismissal and remanded for a determination of whether the equitable claim was timely. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the federal antitrust claims and on the supplemental state law claims. View "Samsung Electronics v. Panasonic Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Novartis, manufacturer of Zometa, alleging products liability, negligent manufacture, negligent failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranty, and loss of consortium. On appeal, plaintiff contended that the district court erred by excluding the causation testimony offered by her expert when it found the testimony to be irrelevant and unreliable. The court concluded that the expert's testimony was relevant because it indicated that plaintiff's bisphosphonate use was a substantial factor in her development of bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw. The court also concluded that the expert's testimony was reliable where he used a differential diagnosis grounded in significant clinical experience and examination of medical records and literature. Accordingly, the court concluded that the expert's testimony created a genuine issue of material fact regarding the specific causal link between plaintiff's bisphosphonates treatment and her development of osteonecrosis of the jaw. The court reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Novartis and remanded. View "Messick v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of two counts of aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1). The court concluded that the district court constructively amended the indictment when it declined to name the specific victims whose identities the indictment accused defendant of stealing. Accordingly, the court reversed the convictions and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Ward" on Justia Law