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

Articles Posted in U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
by
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his securities fraud class action for failure to state a claim. The court, agreeing with the Eleventh Circuit, held that the announcement of an investigation, standing alone, is insufficient to establish loss causation; plaintiff cannot establish loss causation on the facts alleged in the amended complaint because he has not attempted to correlate his losses to anything other than the announcement of an internal investigation; and, therefore, the court affirmed the district court on this loss causation issue. The court did not reach plaintiff's arguments regarding scienter. View "Loos v. Immersion Corp., et al." on Justia Law

by
Plaintiffs Coons and Novack filed suit challenging the constitutionality of two provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029 (Affordable Care Act): the individual mandate and the establishment of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). Plaintiffs also sought a declaration that the Arizona Health Care Freedom Act, Ariz. Const. art. XXVII, section 2, is not preempted by the Affordable Care Act. The court affirmed the district court's holding that the individual mandate does not violate Coons' substantive due process right to medical autonomy; affirmed the dismissal of Coons' challenge, based on lack of ripeness, to the individual mandate for violation of his substantive due process right to informational privacy; affirmed the district court's holding that the Affordable Care Act preempts the Arizona Act; and, with respect to Novack's challenge to IPAB, the court vacated the district court's decision on the merits of the claim and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "Coons v. Lew" on Justia Law

by
Quinta Real appealed from the district court's conclusion that expansion of Quinta Real's Mexican hotel business into the United States would result in a likelihood of consumer confusion with La Quinta. The court held that the "use in commerce" element of the Lanham Act claims under section 32 and 43(a) is not connected to the Lanham Act's jurisdictional grant in 15 U.S.C. 1121(a), which grants federal subject-matter jurisdiction without any reference to a "use in commerce" requirement. Therefore, the court concluded that there is federal subject-matter jurisdiction over the trademark claims. The court also concluded that the district court correctly found a likelihood of confusion, but did not provide a sufficient analysis balancing the equities in its decision to grant a permanent injunction. The court held that the defense of laches did not apply. The court affirmed in part and remanded for further assessment of the equities. View "La Quinta Worldwide v. Q.R.T.M." on Justia Law

by
Riverkeeper attempted to intervene in an effort to prevent LNG from constructing a liquefied natural gas facility and pipeline along the Columbia River in Oregon. Riverkeeper sought review of the Coast Guard's issuance of a letter of recommendation regarding the suitability of the waterway for vessel traffic, contending that the court has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717r(d)(1). Section 717r(d) authorizes judicial review of agency orders and actions that issue, condition, or deny any permit, license, concurrence, or approval. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the petition for review because the letter of recommendation was not such an order or action under section 717r(d)(1). View "Columbia Riverkeeper v. U.S. Coast Guard" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of her consumer rights claim under section 480-2 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (UDAP claim). The court concluded that district courts evaluating whether a borrower's complaint states a claim under sections 480-2 and 480-13 against a lender need only address whether the complaint adequately alleges that the lender used unfair or deceptive acts in its relationship with the borrower, without looking to negligence law to determine whether the lender breached a common law duty of care; rather than requiring proof of a common law duty of care, section 480-2 is better interpreted as imposing a statutory duty on lenders not to engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce; and, given Hawaii's low bar for showing damages, the court concluded that for the purpose of a motion to dismiss plaintiff's allegations that BAC's deceptive conduct caused her to waste two years of effort and incur multiple transaction costs were sufficient to state an injury that caused damages. Therefore, plaintiff has alleged a UDAP claim and the court reversed the district court's judgment, remanding for further proceedings. View "Compton v. Countrywide Financial Corp." on Justia Law

by
Defendants Carr, Anderson, and Franklin appealed their convictions and sentences for three counts related to the armed robbery of a federal credit union. The government cross-appealed defendants' sentences. The court concluded that: (1) if the district court vacated Anderson's conviction for false accompaniment under 18 U.S.C. 2113(e), it erred and the court reversed this portion of the judgment and granted the government's cross appeal; (2) if the district court vacated Franklin's conviction for false accompaniment under section 2113(e), it erred and the court reversed this portion of the judgment and granted the government's cross-appeal; (3) the government's cross-appeal regarding Franklin's gun conviction under 18 U.S.C. 924(c) and corresponding sentencing enhancement under section 2113(d) is denied; (4) on remand, the district court shall enter a corrected judgment reflecting its acquittal of Franklin on the section 924(c) gun charge and the section 2113(d) gun enhancement; and (5) the court affirmed remainder of the district court's judgments. View "United States v. Carr" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiffs Ringgold and Ringgold-Lockhart appealed the district court's vexatious litigant order. The court concluded that the district court provided proper notice and an opportunity to be heard, in accordance with the court's case law's first procedural requirement and due process; the district court compiled an adequate record to permit the court to review the basis of its order; the district court failed to consider alternative sanctions before issuing this injunction; the district court erred by issuing an order against Ringgold-Lockhart on the basis of state litigation in which he played no part; and the scope of the order is too broad in several respects. Accordingly, the court vacated the order and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

by
Defendants invoked diversity jurisdiction and filed a notice of removal fourteen months after the lawsuit was filed in state court. The district court sua sponte remanded, concluding that defendants removed the case too late. The court held that the district court acted in excess of its statutory authority because the one-year time limitation for removal of diversity cases under 28 U.S.C. 1446(b) is a procedural requirement rather than jurisdictional; while the district court may remand at any time prior to final judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it cannot remand sua sponte based on a non-jurisdictional defect because procedural deficiencies are waivable; and, in this instance, plaintiffs' failure to object constituted a waiver of any right to contest the removal. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Smith v. Mylan Inc." on Justia Law

by
The Hawaii AG filed suit in state court against six credit card providers, alleging that each violated state law by deceptively marketing and improperly enrolling cardholders in add-on credit card products. The card providers removed to federal court and the AG moved to remand. The district court denied the motion to remand. The court concluded that the state law claims were not preempted by the National Bank Act of 1864, 12 U.S.C. 85-86. The court joined the Fifth Circuit in holding that sections 85 and 86 did not completely preempt the claims, as there is a difference between alleging that certain customers are being charged too much, and alleging that they should have never been charged for the service in the first place. Therefore, the AG did not plead a completely preempted claim and the district court erred in finding federal question jurisdiction. The court agreed with its sister circuits in holding that the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), does not completely preempt state law. Because the complaints unambiguously disclaimed class status, these actions cannot be removed under CAFA. There is no basis for federal jurisdiction and the cases should have been remanded to state court. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "State of Hawaii v. HSBC Bank of Nevada" on Justia Law

by
This case concerns liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-75, and its state law counterpart, the Arizona Water Quality Assurance Revolving Funds, A.R.S. 49-281-391, for cleanup costs resulting from the contamination of the Broadway-Patano Landfill Site. The court reaffirmed that a district court has an obligation to independently scrutinize the terms of proposed consent decrees by, inter alia, comparing the proportion of total projected costs to be paid by the settling parties with the proportion of liability attributable to them. The court concluded that the district court properly declined to issue declaratory relief regarding the intervening parties' future CERCLA liability; held that the district court erred in entering the parties' proposed CERCLA consent decrees because the district court failed to independently scrutinize the terms of the agreements, and in so doing, afforded undue deference to the ADEQ; and therefore, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Arizona v. Raytheon Co." on Justia Law