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

Defendant, a federal sex offender, appealed his conviction under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq., for failing to register. The court held that the Attorney General has not validly specified that 42 U.S.C. 16913(a)'s requirement of initial registration in the jurisdiction of the sex-offense conviction applied to offenders like defendant - offenders who were, at the time of SORNA's enactment and implementation, already subject to sex-offender registration obligations under a pre-SORNA scheme. The court concluded that the jury instructions contained an error of law in that they permitted the jury to convict solely on the basis of defendant's failure to register in the jurisdiction of his sex offense conviction and the error was harmful. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for a judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. DeJarnette" on Justia Law

Woodlands challenged several aspects of the Corps' Environmental Assessment (EA), and issuance of a "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI) in lieu of preparing a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) concerning ORC's application for a permit to mine valuable mineral sands in Oregon. The court concluded that the Corps complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321, because the Corps properly considered the risks of hexavalent chromium generation; concluded that the risk of hexavalent chromium generation did not warrant a full EIS; and declined to consider cumulative impacts of future chromium mining. Further, the Corps' alternative analysis did not violate the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251. The court rejected Woodlands' arguments and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Corps. View "Jones v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a noncitizen "enemy combatant" undergoing proceedings before a military commission at Guatanamo Bay, sought a declaratory judgment that the commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the charges against him because the alleged acts occurred in Yemen, where he argued no war or hostilities existed in 2000 or 2002. The court held, pursuant to Hamad v. Gates, that Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act, 28 U.S.C. 2241(e), deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's suit. The court rejected plaintiff’s claims challenging the constitutionality of the Act. View "Al-Nashiri v. MacDonald" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for criminal copyright infringement based on his sale of Adobe software. The court applied the willfulness standard for criminal copyright cases as recently clarified in United States v. Liu and concluded that the jury instruction was flawed but did not rise to the level of plain error; the evidence of uncharged acts was properly admitted as intrinsic to the charged conduct and the court affirmed the conviction; and the district court erred in failing to award restitution reflecting the victim's actual loss and the court vacated the restitution order and remanded for reconsideration. View "United States v. Anderson, Jr." on Justia Law

Kalitta filed suit against numerous defendants, including CTAS, alleging various causes of action stemming from the modification of two of its aircraft from passenger to cargo planes. In this appeal, Kalitta challenged the district court's award of costs to CTAS following a jury's unanimous verdict in favor of CTAS. The court reversed the district court's award of costs for the pro hac vice admission of CTAS's counsel; reversed the district court's award of costs for editing and synchronizing deposition videotapes; and affirmed the court's award of costs for graphics consultants and the 2002 costs award. View "Kalitta Air L.L.C. v. Cent. Texas Airborne Sys." on Justia Law

This appeal arose out of a protracted dispute over attorneys' fees awarded in the Wal-Mart wage and hour multidistrict litigation. Appellants, the Burton Group, appealed from the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award allocating attorneys' fees, contending that the district court erred in declining to vacate the award under section 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. 10(a). The court concluded that a non-appealability clause in an arbitration agreement that eliminates all federal court review of arbitration awards, including review under section 10(a) of the FAA, was not enforceable. Accordingly, the court proceeded to the merits of the Burton Group's claims, and affirmed the district court's confirmation of the arbitration award in a memorandum disposition filed contemporaneously with this opinion. View "In re: Wal-Mart" on Justia Law

After plaintiff purchased a background check and report from Intelius on the Internet, plaintiff discovered that Adaptive, a separate company from Intelius, had been charging his credit card each month for a Family Safety Report. Plaintiff and others filed suit against Intelius in state court. Intelius then filed a third-party complaint against Adaptive. Adaptive filed a motion to compel arbitration of both Intelius's and plaintiff's claims. The court held that plaintiff did not enter into a contract with Adaptive to purchase the Family Safety Report, and did not enter into a contract with Adaptive to arbitrate. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to compel. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Lee v. Intelius Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against JEM, a "back-end" debt-relief company, and others, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy, and breach of Washington consumer protection statutes. On appeal, JEM appealed from the district court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The court concluded that the district court correctly decided that it, rather than an arbitrator, should decide whether the arbitration clause in the attorney retainer agreement was unconscionable. The court also concluded that the district court properly decided, using non-preempted Washington law, that the arbitration clause was unenforceable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Smith v. JEM Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The City appealed the district court's determination that the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, preempted its decision to require T-Mobile to obtain voter approval before constructing mobile telephone antennae on city-owned park property. T-Mobile cross-appealed the denial of permanent injunctive relief. The court concluded that section 332(c)(7)(A) of the Act has the following preemptive scope: (1) it preempts local land use authorities' regulations if they violate the requirements of section 332(c)(7)(B)(i) and (iv); and (2) it preempts local land use authorities' adjudicative decisions if the procedures for making such decisions do not meet the minimum requirements of section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii) and (iii). In this case, the voter-approval requirement imposed by Measure C was outside the City's framework for land use decision making because it did not implicate the regulatory and administrative structure established by the City's general plans and zoning and subdivision code. Therefore, the court concluded that it was not preempted and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Omnipoint v. City of Huntington Beach" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against her employer, the Secretary of the Army, alleging that certain adverse employment actions resulted from discrimination. Plaintiff had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection but failed to list the action as an asset on her bankruptcy schedule. The district court held that no evidence suggested that plaintiff's original omission had been inadvertent or mistaken and that, weighing factors set forth in New Hampshire v. Maine, judicial estoppel barred the action. Plaintiff appealed. The court affirmed, concluding that this case was distinguishable from the court's holding in Ah Quin v. County of Kauai Department of Transportation, where plaintiff here filed false bankruptcy schedules and did not amend those schedules until defendant filed a motion to dismiss, suggesting that her omission had not been inadvertent. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its analysis under the New Hampshire factors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Dzakula v. McHugh" on Justia Law