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

Plaintiff, a minor, challenged the district court's orders upholding the OAH's partial denial of reimbursement for educational costs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in No. 12-55715 and granting in part and denying in part a related motion for attorney's fees in No. 12-56796. The district court affirmed the OAH's finding that the school districts denied the student a free appropriate public education for the 2007/2008 school year when they failed to comply with a previous settlement agreement's assessment requirements. The court concluded that the private placement was appropriate. As such, the child should be reimbursed for the cost of tuition. Because the court found that the private placement was an appropriate placement, the child was also entitled to transportation reimbursement; and the district court did not err in partially rejecting reimbursement for the cost of the private aides. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part No. 12-55715. The court dismissed No. 12-56796 for lack of jurisdiction to hear the untimely appeal of the district court's order on fees. View "S. L. v. Upland Unified Sch. Dist., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being an alien found in the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. The court concluded that section 1326 did not require the government to prove that an order of removal or deportation was issued where the alien has been deported or removed; the district court did not err by admitting defendant's Verification of Removal where a verification of removal comports with the requirements of the Confrontation Clause and is admissible under the public records exception to the rule against hearsay; in this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the verification where the prosecution properly authenticated the Verification of Removal by calling a deportation officer as a witness; the district court clearly erred by admitting a border patrol agent's lay opinion on the ultimate question before the jury because the agent's testimony did not satisfy the personal knowledge requirement of Federal Rule of Evidence 602; the erroneous admission of the agent's lay opinion did not affect defendant's substantial rights and it did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial; and therefore, the court affirmed the judgment after finding no reversible error. View "United States v. Francisco" on Justia Law

In enacting comprehensive welfare reform in 1996, Congress rendered various groups of aliens ineligible for federal benefits and also restricted states' ability to use their own funds to provide benefits to certain aliens. As a condition of receiving federal funds, Congress required states to limit eligibility for federal benefits, such as Medicaid, to citizens and certain aliens. Plaintiffs filed suit claiming that Basic Health Hawai'i violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it provided less health coverage to nonimmigrant aliens residing in Hawai'i (COFA Residents) than the health coverage that Hawai'i provided to citizens and qualified aliens who are eligible for federal reimbursements through Medicaid. The court concluded that Congress has plenary power to regulate immigration and the conditions on which aliens remain in the United States, and Congress has authorized states to do exactly what Hawai'i had done here - determine the eligibility for, and terms of, state benefits for aliens in a narrow third category, with regard to whom Congress expressly gave states limited discretion. Hawai'i has no constitutional obligation to fill the gap left by Congress's withdrawal of federal funding for COFA Residents. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction preventing Hawai'i from reducing state-paid health benefits for COFA Residents because Hawai'i is not obligated to backfill the loss of federal funds with state funds and its decision not to do so was subject to rational-basis review. View "Korab v. Fink" on Justia Law

Peabody appealed the Board's affirmance of the ALJ's decision ordering Peabody to pay a coal miner's surviving spouse all the benefits to which the coal miner was entitled to receive under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 20 C.F.R. 718.201(a). The court concluded that the ALJ did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, by considering the regulatory preamble to the Black Lung Benefits Act in his decision and the ALJ's award of benefits to the coal miner was supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the court denied Peabody's petition for review. View "Peabody Coal v. OWCP" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his putative class action alleging that ebay.com's Automatic Bidding system breached two provisions of eBay's User Agreement, violated California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. Prof. Code 17204, and constituted intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim for breach of contract where the two provisions at issue in the User Agreement did not constitute an enforceable promise by eBay. The court also concluded that plaintiff failed to state a claim under the UCL where, even if the User Agreement had represented that eBay would directly transmit bids to sellers, plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that he relied on this representation. Moreover, since a reasonable person in plaintiff's position could not have relied on such a representation, it would not have been material. Finally, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to set forth a claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Block v. Ebay, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant, twelve years old at the time of the offense, appealed his conviction for sexually abusing his six year old cousin. The court concluded that the certification that the government filed in the district court met the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 5032 by certifying that "the juvenile court or the state does not have jurisdiction over the juvenile with respect to the alleged act of juvenile delinquency," even though it was missing a page and did not include a statement of the government's substantial federal interest in this case. Guided by the United States v. Kim factors, considering the totality of the circumstances of defendant's detention, and taking into account defendant's status as a juvenile, the court concluded that a reasonable person in defendant's position would not have felt free to terminate the questioning and leave the police station. Therefore, defendant was "in custody" during his interrogation by the detective. Defendant was never read his Miranda rights and his inculpatory statements during his interrogation by the detective must be suppressed. Defendant's younger brother, who was seven at the time of trial and five at the time of the offense, was competent to testify as a witness. The evidence at trial, including defendant's inculpatory statements, was not insufficient to support the conviction. The court reversed and remanded, however, because the inculpatory statements were obtained in violation of defendant's Miranda rights and should have been suppressed. View "United States v. IMM" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and California law after police officers shot and killed Kamal Lal. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Lal lead police on a high speed chase for 45 minutes before the officers were able to disable his vehicle. In the four minutes that elapsed after Lal exited the truck, he first tried to seriously injure himself, tried to provoke the officers into shooting him, threw rocks at the officers, and then, ignoring instructions to stop, advanced upon the officers threatening them with a football-sized rock he held over his head. Under the totality of the circumstances, the district court's determinations that the officers objectively feared immediate serious physical harm and that a reasonable officer could have believed that Lal threatened him with immediate serious danger were sound. That Lal may have been intent on committing "suicide by cop" did not negate the fact that he threatened the officers with such immediate serious harm that shooting him was a reasonable response. According, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Lal v. California" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenged the reinstatement of his removal order under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, div. C., 110 Stat. 3009-546. Petitioner argued that the Act cannot retroactively eliminate his right to renew his application for relief from reinstatement. The court rejected petitioner's argument because he did nothing before the Act's effective date ten years later. Although petitioner's initial application for adjustment of status was denied on the merits in 1987, he did nothing to renew his application during the decade that passed before the Act would become effective. Accordingly, the court denied the petition where petitioner had no vested right. View "Ortega v. Holder" on Justia Law

After Reno's financing collapsed, Reno initiated an arbitration before FINRA to resolve its claims against Goldman arising out of their contractual relationship. Goldman then filed this action to enjoin the FINRA arbitration. The court concluded that it, rather than FINRA, must determine the arbitrability of this dispute. Although Reno qualified as Goldman's customer under FINRA Rule 12200, the court held that Reno disclaimed its right to FINRA arbitration by agreeing to the forum selection clauses in the parties' contracts. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction and final judgment in favor of Reno. Despite Goldman's "overwhelming likelihood of success on the merits," the court remanded to the district court to consider the remaining Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. factors. View "Goldman, Sachs & Co. v. City of Reno" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possessing an unregistered machine gun and sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment. On appeal, the government conceded that the district court miscalculated defendant's base offense level. The court vacated and remanded for resentencing, holding that the district court also erred in applying a six-level enhancement for multiple firearms under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(b)(1)(C) on the basis of other weapons found at defendant's home. View "United States v. Vargem" on Justia Law