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

This appeal stemmed from the sale of the Chronicle Publishing Company. After the Martin Family Trusts formed a tiered partnership structure, the Martin heirs commenced a series of transactions designed to create losses that would offset the taxable gain realized from the Chronicle Publishing sale. On appeal, taxpayers argued that the 2000-A Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAA) was time-barred by the restrictive language in the extension agreements. The court agreed with the district court that the extension agreements between the IRS and First Step encompassed adjustments made in the 2000-A FPAA that were directly attributable to partnership flow-through items of First Ship; the FPAA to 2000-A extended the limitations period for assessing tax beyond the extension agreements and through the present litigation; however, the agreements did not extend to adjustments in the 2000-A FPAA that were not directly attributable to First Ship; and because the district court held more broadly that "the extension agreements encompass the adjustments made by the IRS in the FPAA issued to 2000-A," the court remanded to the district court to make a determination of which adjustments in the 2000-A FPAA were directly attributable to partnership flow-through items of First Ship. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Candyce Martin 1999 Irrevocable Trust v. United States" on Justia Law

Section 152 First of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. 152 First, imposes a duty on all carrier employees to engage in the Act's labor dispute resolution procedures before ceasing to perform their work. ASIG filed suit against the IBT, requesting a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a declaratory judgment for a permanent injunction to enjoin a strike at Sea-Tac airport as unlawful under the Act. Because the employees of ASIG were carrier employees, they must comply with the Act. Because they were subject to this obligation, the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the strike injunction. The injunction did not violate the employees' or other defendants' First Amendment rights; it furthered the important governmental interest of regulating the economic relationship between labor and management and was no greater than essential to the furtherance of that interest. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Aircraft Service Int'l v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Canadian, was ordered removed when customs officials determined that he planned to work in the United States as a photographer/cameraman without documentation. At issue was whether a Canadian arriving at the border and subjected to expedited removal but never detained was entitled to habeas relief, under either the traditional habeas structure, 28 U.S.C. 2241, or the more limited regime applicable to expedited removal orders, 8 U.S.C. 1252(e)(2). The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's claims under the traditional habeas statute because petitioner was never in custody. Determining that it had jurisdiction under the limited review provisions of section 1252(e)(2), the court held that petitioner was not entitled to relief because, as applied to the narrow facts of this case, section 1252(e)(2) did not permit the court to consider any further collateral damage. View "Smith v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection" on Justia Law

Inhale claimed copyright protection in the shape of a hookah water container that it first published in 2008 and registered with the United States Copyright Office in 2011. Inhale filed suit against Starbuzz for copyright infringement, claiming that Starbuzz sold water containers that were identical in shape to Inhale's container. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Starbuzz after determining that the shape of the water container was not copyrightable. The court concluded that the shape of a container is not independent of the container's utilitarian function - to hold the contents within its shape - because the shape accomplishes the function. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that the shape of Inhale's hookah water container was not copyrightable. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion under 17 U.S.C. 505 by awarding attorneys' fees to Starbuzz. Moreover, the court awarded attorneys' fees incurred in the defense of this appeal to Starbuzz under section 505 in an amount to be determined by the district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment and remanded. View "Inhale, Inc. v. Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc." on Justia Law

After debtor filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, the trustee filed a motion for turnover under section 542(a) of the Bankruptcy Code against debtor to recover $6,155.19 of her petition-date account balance. The bankruptcy court denied the motion because debtor did not have possession or control of the funds at the time the trustee filed the motion for turnover. The district court affirmed. The court concluded that the plain language of section 542(a), pre-Code practice, and the context of other Code provisions indicated that the trustee's turnover power was not restricted to property of the estate at the time the motion is filed. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Shapiro v. Henson" on Justia Law

Defendant filed a 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion where the request that family members and spectators leave the courtroom until seats became available was at most a trivial courtroom closure that did not implicate defendant's Sixth Amendment right. The failure to object to the courtroom closure request or to appeal the conviction on that ground was not deficient performance on the part of trial counsel. Finally, defendant was not prejudiced. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Dharni" on Justia Law

This appeal relates to a discovery dispute that arose in this action challenging Washington's rules that require pharmacies to maintain a representative assortment of drugs for which there was patient demand and to dispense prescription drugs and drugs approved by the FDA for restricted distribution, unless one of several enumerated exceptions applies. On appeal, Law Center challenged the district court's denial of sanctions and costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d). Concluding that the court had jurisdiction over the appeal, the court affirmed the denial of sanctions under Rule 45(d)(1). The court agreed with the D.C. Circuit's analysis of the amended rule and held that Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(ii) requires the district court to shift a non-party's costs of compliance with a subpoena, if those costs are significant. The court concluded that the district court erred in its interpretation of Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(ii) framing the issue in terms of undue burden, rather than significant expense. Accordingly, the court reversed the denial of costs and remanded for consideration of the proper allocation of costs. View "Legal Voice v. Stormans, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who has an IQ score of 71, appealed the denial of his supplemental security income benefits. The court concluded that plaintiff did not show that his impairments medically equal an IQ score of 60-70, so he has not shown equivalence to all three individual criteria under Listing 12.05C and his condition thus does not equal the listing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of benefits. View "Kennedy v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen of China of Korean and Chinese descent, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of petitioner's applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). At issue was whether an IJ could use the maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" (i.e. false in one thing, false in everything) to find that material inconsistencies in testimony regarding one claim supported an adverse credibility determination on another claim. The court denied the petition for review, holding that Ninth Circuit precedent permitted the BIA to use an adverse credibility finding on one claim to support an adverse finding on another claim in a pre-REAL ID Act case. View "Li v. Holder" on Justia Law

This litigation arose from the City's recent efforts to complete its power system expansion plan first conceived in 1972 and re-affirmed in 2007. The City owns and operates Idaho Falls Power. Alliance sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the City lacked the power to condemn property outside its boundaries for the purpose of building electric transmission lines. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Alliance, finding that Idaho law did not grant the City (or, by extension, IFP) the power to condemn property outside its corporate limits for the purpose of constructing the transmission lines. Because the power to exercise eminent domain extraterritorially for the purpose of constructing electric transmission lines (1) has not been expressly granted to the City by the state, (2) cannot be fairly implied from the powers that the City has been given by the state, and (3) is not essential to accomplishing the City's objects and purposes, the City does not have that power. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Alliance v. City of Idaho Falls" on Justia Law