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

Police, on the lookout for two white males, mistook a teenaged boy and his friends, all Hispanic, for intruders in the boy's own home. The police pointed guns at the boys, entered the home without a warrant, handcuffed and detained the boys and others, and shot and killed the family dog. The boy's family, the Sandovals, filed suit alleging violations of their constitutional rights and related rights under state law. On appeal, the Sandovals challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment to the police department and the officers on all claims. The court concluded that Officer Dunn's warrantless entry into the home was not supported by probable cause and thus violated plaintiffs' rights; because it was clearly established Federal law that the warrantless search of a dwelling must be supported by probable cause and the existence of exigent circumstances or an emergency aid exception, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity; the court reversed the grant of qualified immunity to the officers on plaintiffs' excessive force claims where the district court unfairly tipped the reasonableness inquiry in the officers' favor, rather than in the Sandovals' favor; the court rejected plaintiffs' familial association claim where the boy's father was separated from his son briefly and where the shooting of the family dog did not fall within the ambit of deprivation of familial relationship; the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the officers on the equal protection claim and municipal liability claim; the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the officers on the state law intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery, and false imprisonment claims as they relate to Jesus Sandoval, and the handcuffing and detention of the boys once the officers knew no crime had been committed; and the court affirmed the dismissal of the remaining state law claims. The court reversed the district court's judgment as to the Fourth Amendment claims for excessive force and unlawful entry. View "Sandoval v. Las Vegas Metro Police Dep't" on Justia Law

Arc challenged state officials' implementation of three new policies relating to state funding of home- and community-based services to developmentally disabled persons. California has reduced its funding for this program, as it has for other Medicaid-funded programs, 42 U.S.C. 1396-1396w-5, at various times. The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying Arc's motion for a preliminary injunction because it misconstrued the Medicaid Act and applied deference to a federal agency decision where none was due; the court asserted pendant appellate jurisdiction over the dismissal of Arc's Medicaid Act claims, which relied on exactly the same reasoning, and reversed; the court could not go beyond correcting the district court's statutory interpretation to determining the propriety of preliminary injunctive relief; the primary state statute Arc challenges expired while the case was on appeal and, therefore, that challenge is moot; while the two other challenged statutes - the uniform holiday schedule and half-day billing rule - remain in effect, their impact was not the focus of the preliminary injunction proceeding and, therefore, the court remanded to allow augmentation of the record and reconsideration of the propriety of injunctive relief in the changed circumstances, applying the correct irreparable harm analysis. View "The Arc of California v. Douglas" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal John R. Grele and his former client, Markette Tillman, appealed an order removing him to the California State bar for disciplinary proceedings. The court concluded, under Flanagan v. United States, that it lacked jurisdiction over Tillman's claim where the removal order is nonfinal and not immediately appealable. Tillman has the opportunity to raise the issue on direct appeal. In regards to Grele's petition as to the sanctions order, the court concluded that mandamus jurisdiction is appropriate to consider the sanctions order, that the district court erred in imposing sanctions without notice and a hearing, and that the order should be vacated. View "United States v. Tillman" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from contempt sanctions issued by the bankruptcy court against the Diazes for failing to transfer a Mexican coastal villa to Kismet. The court concluded that: (1) the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to substitute Axolotl as transferee; (2) the bankruptcy court did not violate due process in imposing certain sanctions; (3) the ACJ was sufficiently specific to support a finding of contempt; (4) even if "legal impossibility" excused noncompliance, the Diazes have not demonstrated that compliance with the ACJ was legally impossible; (5) the bankruptcy court's findings of contempt for the period up to November 25 were not clearly erroneous; (6) the Diazes' claim that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to quantify fees and costs in its order of December 18, 2008 was moot where the order was vacated by the district court; and (7) the bankruptcy court properly abrogated attorney-client privilege where Mr. Diaz implicitly waived privilege with regard to communications on certain subjects. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in vacating the compulsory sanctions of $25,000 per day for the period from November 26, 2008 to December 4, 2008. Finally, the court granted requests for judicial notice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "In re: Icenhower" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., alleging that defendants made false representations to him in connection with their efforts to collect a purported debt. Plaintiff claimed that defendants violated the FDCPA by misidentifying his original creditor in a series of collection letters sent to him, as well as in a complaint filed against him in state court. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. The court concluded that plaintiff had Article III standing where plaintiff alleged that he suffered the violation of his right not to be the target of misleading debt collection miscommunications. The court also concluded that plaintiff had statutory standing under the FDCPA. The court concluded that Nelson & Kennard violated the FDCPA by including misleading references to American Investment Bank in both its letter to plaintiff and in the state court complaint it filed against him. These conclusions were sufficient to warrant both reversal of the judgment granted to Nelson & Kennard and entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Tourgeman v. Collins Financial Servs." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction after pleading guilty to one count of importation of over fifty kilograms of marijuana. Defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to suppress incriminating statements made to a federal agent 48 hours after his arrest, but before he was presented to a magistrate judge. The court concluded under the McNabb-Mallory rule that defendant's statements must be suppressed under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a) because the delay in presenting defendant to a magistrate was unreasonable and unnecessary. The court reversed the denial of defendant's motion, vacated the conviction, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Torres Pimental" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of production of child pornography and one count of penalties for registered sex offenders. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying an enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.1(b)(4) for sexual exploitation of a minor by production of sexually explicit visual or printed material that portrayed sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence; the district court did not abuse its discretion in selecting a consecutive sentence; the court rejected defendant's general plea for reconsideration of the court's sentencing review standard; and the sentence was reasonable where the district court explained that it had conducted a thorough review of defendant's claims and the 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors and it demonstrated sufficient consideration of all of the supporting evidence provided to the court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Shouse" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action suit to recover unpaid overtime wages from her former employer, Bloomingdale's. The district court granted Bloomingdale's motion to compel arbitration, determining that shortly after being hired by Bloomingdale's, plaintiff entered into a valid, written arbitration agreement and that all of her claims fell within the scope of that agreement. The court concluded that plaintiff had the right to opt out of the arbitration agreement, and had she done so she would be free to pursue this class action in court. Having freely elected to arbitrate employment-related disputes on an individual basis, without interference from Bloomingdale's, she could not claim that enforcement of the agreement violated either the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. 101 et seq., or the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The court concluded that the district court correctly held that the arbitration agreement was valid and, under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq., it must be enforced according to its terms. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action suit alleging that Nordstrom violated various state and federal employment laws by precluding employees from bringing most class action lawsuits in light of AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion. Nordstrom, relying on the revised arbitration policy in its employee handbook, sought to compel plaintiff to submit to individual arbitration of her claims. The district court denied Nordstrom's motion to compel. The court concluded that Nordstrom satisfied the minimal requirements under California law for providing employees with reasonable notice of a change to its employee handbook, and Nordstrom was not bound to inform plaintiff that her continued employment after receiving the letter constituted acceptance of new terms of employment. Accordingly, the court concluded that Nordstrom and plaintiff entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate disputes on an individual basis. The court reversed and remanded for the district court to address the issue of unconscionably. View "Davis v. Nordstorm, Inc." on Justia Law

Musical artist George Clinton appealed the district court's order appointing a receiver and authorizing the sale of copyrights in an action against his former law firm. The firm obtained judgments against Clinton for past-due attorneys' fees and sought an order authorizing the sale of master recordings that Clinton recorded with the group Funkadelic (the "Masters") to satisfy the judgments. The court concluded that Clinton's copyrights in the Masters were subject to execution to satisfy judgments entered against him; Section 201(e) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 201(e), does not protect Clinton from the involuntary transfer of his copyrighted works; the district court did not abuse its discretion by appointing a receiver to manage or sell ownership of these copyrights; Clinton may raise claims of fraud on the court and judicial estoppel for the first time on appeal, but both claims are meritless; and Clinton failed to raise his preemption, Erie Doctrine, and Due Process Arguments in the district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Hendricks & Lewis PLLC v. Clinton" on Justia Law