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

Defendant pled guilty to illegally entering the United States during an "Operation Streamline" proceeding. The court concluded that, although the district court did not err by advising defendants of their rights en masse, it erred by not questioning defendant individually to ensure that she understood her rights; the government has not carried its burden of proving that defendant would have pleaded guilty even without the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(1) error; and, therefore, defendant's convictions must be vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Arqueta-Ramos" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the City's enactment of an ordinance which had the practical effect of prohibiting new group homes - i.e., homes in which recovering alcoholics and drug users live communally and mutually support each other's recovery - from opening in most residential zones. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' disparate treatment claims; plaintiffs have created a triable fact that the ordinance was enacted in order to discriminate against them on the basis of disability, and that its enactment and enforcement harmed them; and the court reversed the district court's dismissal of all of plaintiffs' damages claims, except for its dismissal of Terri Bridgeman's claim for emotional distress. View "Pac. Shores Properties v. City of Newport Beach" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a welder who injured his back in 2003, petitioned for review of the Benefits Review Board's affirmance of an ALJ's finding that petitioner's pay increases after the date of injury were reflective of his wage-earning capacity and shall be used to calculate his disability benefits. The court held that, under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C. 901-950, scheduled wage increases given by a non-union employer to all employees in a certain class based solely upon seniority are a general increase in wages and did not increase a claimant's wage-earning capacity. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the Board's decision, and remanded for recalculation of petitioner's partial disability benefits. View "Petitt v. Sause Brothers" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from the City's offering of municipal bonds to finance the development of a cable and Internet system. Nuveen subsequently brought federal and state securities claims against the City, alleging that the City misrepresented the risks to investors. The court concluded that Nuveen has not shown a triable issue of fact on the issue of loss calculation in regards to its federal claims under Section 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(b)(4); the City enjoys statutory immunity from suit on Nuveen's state claims where California courts have applied section 818.8 of California's Government Claims Act to immunize public entities from liability for misrepresentations sanctioned by those entities; and, although the City was entitled to summary judgment, Nuveen had reasonable cause to bring suit and the evidence suffices to establish its good faith. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the City's motion for defense costs, as well as the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City. View "Nuveen Municipal v. City of Alameda" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the jury verdict finding him guilty of sexual exploitation of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a) and knowingly receiving child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(2). The court concluded that section 2251(a) did not require that the defendant have knowledge that the materials used to produce child pornography had traveled in interstate commerce; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting at trial defendant's prior conviction for possession of child pornography; and a rational jury could conclude that the videos introduced at trial depicted sexually explicit conduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Sheldon" on Justia Law

Rocky Mountain and American Fuels filed two separate actions against CARB, contending that the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 17, 95480-90, violated the dormant Commerce Clause and was preempted by Section 211(o) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7545(o), known as the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). The court held that the Fuel Standard's regulation of ethanol did not facially discriminate against out-of-state commerce, and its initial crude-oil provisions (2011 Provisions) did not discriminate against out-of-state crude oil in purpose or practical effect. The court also held that the Fuel Standard did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause's prohibition on extraterritorial regulation. The court vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded to the district court for further considerations under Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. View "Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey" on Justia Law

Rock River, a producer, seller, and distributor of music records, filed suit against UMG, alleging that UMG inappropriately blocked Rock River from distributing its album of Bob Marley and the Wailers remixes by wrongfully threatening to sue Rock River's distributors. The district court ruled in favor of UMG. The court remanded Rock River's intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (IIPEA) claim for trial where it had not yet been established that Rock River's album violated the exclusive licensing rights of UMG or any other entity, and there remains a triable issue as to whether San Juan Music Group has licensing rights to all of the underlying recordings or whether UMG has the exclusive licensing rights to one or more of the recordings; the court could not affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to UMG on the alternative basis of Noerr-Pennington immunity because a reasonable jury could conclude that UMG's cease-and-desist communications satisfied both criteria of the sham exception; and the court affirmed the district court's ruling that UMG did not implicitly waive privilege over its attorney-client communications. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Rock River Commc'n v. Universal Music Group" on Justia Law

NRIC challenged the Sixth Northwest Power Plan (the Plan) that the Council adopted in May 2010. NRIC argued that the Plan failed to give due consideration for protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife as the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (the Power Act), 16 U.S.C. 839-839h, required. The court concluded that the NRIC had not pointed to any part of the Power Act that required the Council to reconsider fish and wildlife measures in light of its evaluation of the regional power system from the subsequent power-planning process. Absent such a showing, the court would not second-guess the due consideration that the Council gave to fish and wildlife interests in the adoption of the Plan. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Plan with respect to NRIC's due-consideration challenge. The court remanded, however, the Plan to the Council for the limited purposes of (1) allowing public notice and comment on the proposed methodology for determining quantifiable environmental costs and benefits, and (2) reconsidering the inclusion in the Plan of the BPA's estimate of the 2009 Program's costs to hydrosystem operations. View "NW Res. Inf. Ctr. v. NW Power & Conserv. Council" on Justia Law

This case involved the forfeiture of $671,170 in currency seized from a vehicle rented by claimant, a Canadian citizen. Claimant appealed the district court's dismissal of his verified claim and answer, and the resulting default judgment in favor of the United States, contending that he did not meet the statutory definition of a fugitive from justice under the Fugitive Disentitlement Statute, 28 U.S.C. 2466. The court concluded that the totality of the circumstances supported the district court's conclusion that claimant has intentionally declined to return to the United States as to avoid submitting to the jurisdiction of the California courts and consequently facing the criminal charge pending against him. Therefore, the court concluded that claimant was a fugitive under section 2466(a)(1); the district court did not abuse its discretion in disentitling claimant under section 2466 and striking his answer and claim to the forfeited funds; and the district court did not err in denying claimant's request to convert the government's motion into a motion for summary judgment. The court declined to address claimant's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. $671, 160 in U.S. Currency" on Justia Law

I-TAP, an approved apprenticeship program for Federal purposes, but not recognized by California as a state-approved apprenticeship program, filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the ground that the CDIR's actions were inconsistent with the National Apprenticeship Act of 1937 (Fitzgerald Act). The court concluded that federal subject-matter jurisdiction existed in this case; the court declined to afford controlling deference to the DOL's new interpretation of the meaning of "Federal purposes" under 29 C.F.R. 29.2 under Auer v. Robbins, but nevertheless adopted that interpretation as the most persuasive construction of the regulation at issue; the court adopted the DOL's new interpretation of Federal purposes, which required of agreements, contracts, etc., that conformity with federal apprenticeship standards be a condition for the federal assistance at issue; plaintiffs' preemption claim failed where the three projects at issue did not qualify as Federal purposes, and it was not impermissible for the CDIR to require the contractors on the projects to comply with California's apprenticeship standards; and plaintiffs' dormant Commerce Clause, equal protection, and substantive due process challenges failed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Indep. Training v. Cal. Dep't Indus. Relations" on Justia Law