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

Petitioner, convicted of offenses related to the attempted murder of his wife, appealed the denial of his federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254(a). The court concluded that the state trial court did not unreasonably conclude that Juror No. 6 had credibly testified that he would be a fair and impartial juror; Juror No. 6's consideration of extrinsic evidence did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict on Counts II and IV; the record supported the California Court of Appeal's finding that the guilty jury verdict was unanimous on Counts III and IV and its decision was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding; and because defendant failed to state a due process claim in violation of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court, the court did not reach defendant's final argument. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Smith v. Swarthout" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of maliciously damaging the real property of the United States by fire. On appeal, the government challenged defendants' sentences. Defendants, ranchers, set fires on their property that spread to nearby public lands. The court concluded that the government did not waive its right to appeal where the principles of governing the formation and interpretation of plea agreements left no room for implied waivers. The court held that the district court illegally sentenced defendants to terms of imprisonment less than the statutory minimum. Although the district court attempted to justify lesser sentences on Eighth Amendment grounds, sentencing defendants to five years of imprisonment, the statutory minimum, would not have been unconstitutional. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "United States v. Hammond" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of charges related to his participation in a scheme involving the fraudulent issuance of airline passenger tickets. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's partial denial of his Motion to Clarify Conditions of Supervised Release and the Amount and Current Status of Restitution. Determining that the district court retained jurisdiction to calculate the amount of restitution owing, the court concluded that, in general, restitution and forfeiture are two separate and distinct parts of a criminal sentence, and a defendant did not have a right to have forfeited funds applied to a restitution obligation or to have the value of the forfeited assets "frozen" at the moment they were turned over to the government. The court also concluded that, because the restitution amount was fulfilled through the forfeited assets, defendant did not have any remaining restitution obligation. Accordingly, defendant's restitution balance has been satisfied and the court reversed the district court's order. View "United States v. Carter" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his claim under Rule 12(b)(6), alleging that Nationstar violated section 533 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), 50 U.S.C. app. 533, when it maintained certain fees related to a rescinded Notice of Default on his account while he was on active duty. Because the state-law statutory definition of foreclosure contemplates the inclusion of specified fees as part of the foreclosure proceeding, and because the Supreme Court has unambiguously required courts to give a broad construction to the statutory language of the SCRA to effectuate the Congressional purpose of granting active-duty members of the armed forces repose from some of the trials and tribulations of civilian life, the court held that the attempted collection of fees related to a Notice of Default on a California property constituted a violation of section 533. In this case, plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to allege that Nationstar's continuing failure to remove the fees incidental to the Notice of Default was a continuation of that foreclosure proceeding while plaintiff was on active duty service in violation of section 533. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Brewster v. Sun Trust Mortgage" on Justia Law

GLAAD filed a putative class action alleging that CNN violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code 51 et seq., and California's Disabled Persons Act (DPA), Cal. Civ. Code 54 et seq., by intentionally excluding deaf and hard of hearing visitors from accessing the videos on CNN.com. CNN filed a motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP law, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16 et seq., arguing that GLAAD's claims arose from conduct in furtherance of CNN's free speech rights and that GLAAD failed to establish a probability of prevailing on its claims. The court concluded that CNN's conduct was in furtherance of its free speech rights on a matter of public interest; where, as here, an action directly targeted the way a content provider chose to deliver, present, or publish news content on matters of public interest, that action was based on conduct in furtherance of free speech rights and must withstand scrutiny under California's anti-SLAPP statute; GLAAD failed to establish a probability of success on the merits of its Unruh Act claims because it has not shown intentional discrimination based on disability as required under California law; at this juncture, none of CNN's constitutional challenges posed a barrier to GLAAD's pursuit of its DPA claims; GLAAD's DPA claims were not foreclosed by the doctrines of field preemption and conflict preemption; GLAAD's DPA claims have the requisite minimal merit to survive CNN's free speech challenge and dormant Commerce Clause challenge; and the court certified to the California Supreme Court the remaining dispositive question of state law regarding GLAAD's DPA claims. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's order denying CNN's motion to dismiss. View "Greater L.A. Agency on Deafness v. CNN" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. 1365(a), which prohibits, inter alia, tampering with any consumer product that affects interstate commerce. Defendant, a pharmacist at a grocery store, moved to dismiss the counts for failure to state an offense. The district court denied the motion and defendant appealed. The court concluded that, in light of Congress' clear statements upon enacting section 1365(a), and consistent with the rule of lenity, the more restrictive definition of "tamper" - one that requires alteration or adulteration of the item tampered - should apply. In this case, the indictment sufficiently alleged "tampering" by alleging that defendant opened a box containing Fentanyl patches, removed the patches, and re-glued the box. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Lyle, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Spokeo, operator of a website that provides users with information about other individuals, for willful violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. Because the district court had neither been divested of jurisdiction nor submitted this case to the jury, it was free to reconsider its own prior ruling. Therefore, the court concluded that the law-of-the-case doctrine did not limit the district court in its final order. The court also concluded that alleged violations of plaintiff's statutory rights were sufficient to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III, and plaintiff had adequately pled causation and redressability. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded the district court's dismissal, concluding that plaintiff adequately alleged Article III standing. View "Robins v. Spokeo, Inc." on Justia Law

Carolina filed suit asserting federal jurisdiction based on diversity against defendants for a declaratory judgment that Carolina was not liable under Dry Cleaning's insurance policy. The district court dismissed without leave to amend and, when Carolina filed a proposed amended complaint, the district court did not accept this complaint as sufficient because Carolina still pled its jurisdictional allegations on information and belief and still failed to establish the citizenship of some defendants. The court concluded that because the district court did not conclude that any amendment would be futile, the district court should not have dismissed the initial complaint with leave for Carolina to amend it to correct, as far as possible, the defective jurisdictional allegations; the district court should not have dismissed the complaint for failure to plead allegations of citizenship affirmatively and on knowledge, rather than on information and belief, when the necessary information was not reasonably available to Carolina; and, therefore, the court reversed and remanded. View "Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc." on Justia Law

In 2009, defendant pleaded guilty to receiving a stolen motorcycle in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2313. While on supervised release, defendant pleaded guilty to an assault charge in violation of Washington state law. Because of his plea, defendant was charged with violating the mandatory condition of federal supervised release. Defendant argued that his Alford plea was not probative evidence of the commission of a crime and instead proved only his conviction, which was not itself a violation of any condition of his supervised release. The court concluded that an Alford plea was insufficient evidence to prove commission of a state crime for purposes of a federal supervised release violation when the state itself did not treat it as sufficiently probative of the fact that the defendant actually committed the acts constituting the crime or crimes of conviction. Accordingly, the court reversed and vacated the district court's order revoking supervised release and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's award of attorneys' fees and costs. Under Costa v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, where a fee award has been reduced by almost 30 percent, as here, the district court was required to provide relatively specific reasons for making such significant reductions. In this instance, the court concluded that the district court did not explain its decision to reduce plaintiff's fee request with sufficient specificity to allow the court to review the reasonableness of the fee award. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Carter v. Caleb Brett LLC" on Justia Law