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

The Butter! Spray is a butter-flavored vegetable oil dispensed in pump-action squirt bottles with a spray mechanism. The front label on the product states that the Butter! Spray has 0 calories and 0 grams of fat per serving. Plaintiffs are a class of consumers who brought their lawsuit against the then-manufacturer, Unilever United States, Inc., contending that the product’s label makes misrepresentations about fat and calorie content based on artificially low serving sizes. The district court found that Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that Butter! Spray was not a “spray type” fat or oil under Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations. The district court further held that the FDCA preempted plaintiffs’ serving size claims.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal. The panel held that, as a matter of legal classification, Butter! Spray was a “spray.” In common parlance, a “spray” refers to liquid dispensed in the form of droplets, emitted from a mechanism that allows the product to be applied in that manner. In addition, the notion that Butter! Spray could be housed under the FDA’s legal classification for “butter” is implausible. The panel also rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that Butter! Spray is a “butter substitute” based on how it is marketed so it should be treated as “butter” for serving size purposes, too. The court explained that because Plaintiffs’ challenge to the Butter! Spray serving sizes would “directly or indirectly establish” a requirement for food labeling that is “not identical” to federal requirements, the FDCA preempts their serving size claims. View "KYM PARDINI, ET AL V. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC." on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged federal and wiretap violations and state common law claims against Defendant, her ex-husband, and co-Defendant, his attorney. She alleged that during a child custody proceeding in Nevada state court, Defendant had secretly recorded conversations between her and their child and that co-Defendant had filed selectively edited transcripts of the illegally recorded conversations on the state court’s public docket. The district court concluded that co-Defendant’s alleged conduct involved First Amendment petitioning activity, which is protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The district court entered default judgment against Defendant. The district court awarded Plaintiff $10,000 in statutory damages under the Federal Wiretap Act, but it did not award punitive damages or litigation costs, nor did it discuss or award other categories of damages ostensibly available on her Nevada common-law claims.   The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against co-Defendant as barred under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and entering default judgment against Defendant. The panel held that co-Defendant violated the Federal Wiretap Act, and it agreed with the district court that the vicarious consent doctrine did not apply and that co-Defendant’s conduct was not protected under Bartnick v. Vopper, which carves out a narrow First Amendment exception to the Federal Wiretap Act for matters of public importance. The panel held that filing illegally obtained evidence on a public court docket is conduct not immunized under Noerr-Pennington, and the Federal Wiretap Act unambiguously applied to co-Defendant’s conduct. Further, the court held that the district court failed to adequately address other categories of damages to which Plaintiff might be entitled. View "LYUDMYLA PYANKOVSKA, ET AL V. SEAN ABID, ET AL" on Justia Law

Appellant (the “Warden”) conceded that the Ninth Circuit Court could no longer provide meaningful relief to Petitioner after the state court’s complete vacatur of his original conviction. Although the Warden continued to contest mootness, he did so only on the ground that the district court’s alleged legal error was capable of repetition yet evading review.   The Ninth Circuit dismissed as moot an appeal by the Warden and remanded with instructions that the district court vacates its orders granting habeas relief and dismiss Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition. The panel was not persuaded by this argument as the purported error could be presented on appeal following a district court's rejection of a similar argument by another petitioner or after a grant of habeas relief by a district court that was stayed by the district court or by this court, or after a grant of relief that was challenged by the Warden in that case with sufficient promptness to permit the Ninth Circuit’s effective review before release was required under the terms of the district court's order, or under other circumstances. View "MARIO ARCIGA V. SCOTT FRAUENHEIM" on Justia Law

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (“EPCA”), expressly preempts State and local regulations concerning the energy use of many natural gas appliances, including those used in household and restaurant kitchens. Instead of directly banning those appliances in new buildings, the City of Berkeley took a more circuitous route to the same result. It enacted a building code that prohibits natural gas piping into those buildings, rendering the gas appliances useless. The California Restaurant Association (“CRA”), whose members include restaurateurs and chefs, challenged Berkeley’s regulation, raising an EPCA preemption claim. The district court dismissed the suit.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The panel held that the CRA demonstrated that (1) at least one of its members had suffered an injury in fact, that was (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent rather than conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury was fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) it was likely, not merely speculative, that the injury would be redressed by a favorable decision. The panel held that, by its plain text and structure, the Act’s preemption provision encompasses building codes that regulate natural gas use by covered products. By preventing such appliances from using natural gas, the Berkeley building code did exactly that. The panel reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "CRA V. CITY OF BERKELEY" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted in 1997 of felony assault with a deadly weapon committed while he was a juvenile. In 2016 and 2017, he pleaded guilty to two aggravated DUIs, which were felonies committed in 2003 while he was an adult. Relying on the Supreme Court's post-conviction decision in Rehaif v. United States, Defendant argued on appeal that his 2018 convictions should be overturned due to the district court's failure to instruct the jury that the government must prove that he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.   The Ninth Circuit amended a February 15, 2023, opinion affirming Defendant’s 2018 convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm, denied a petition for panel rehearing, and denied on behalf of the court a petition for rehearing en banc. It was undisputed that the district court’s failure to instruct on the Rehaif knowledge element was error and that the error was plain. The panel held, however, that Defendant cannot show that this error affected his substantial rights. In so holding, the panel did not need to reach whether being convicted as a juvenile or having been incarcerated for more than a year as a result of a juvenile conviction satisfies the Rehaif mens rea requirement. The panel held that Defendant’s two DUI convictions unambiguously demonstrate that there is no reasonable probability that a jury would find that Defendant did not know he had been convicted of a crime punishable by a year or more in prison at the time he possessed the firearm. View "USA V. RYAN MICHELL" on Justia Law

Plaintiff entered the United States in 1981 and became a lawful permanent resident in 1990. He has been married to his U.S. citizen wife, with whom he has two U.S. citizen children, since 1993. After being convicted of possession of a controlled substance for sale under California law, he was ordered removed in absentia and deported in 1999. He re-entered the United States without authorization shortly thereafter. In 2008, during a school festival, Plaintiff tackled an active shooter, knocked his gun away and helped restrain the shooter till law enforcement arrived. In 2010, the Department of Homeland Security apprehended Plaintiff and reinstated his 1996 removal order. To avoid removal, Plaintiff applied for a U-visa and a waiver of inadmissibility. USCIS denied Plaintiff’s request for a waiver of inadmissibility as a matter of discretion and subsequently denied his U-visa application on account of his inadmissibility.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The panel held that Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) precludes judicial review of USCIS’s denial of a waiver of inadmissibility under Section 1182(d)(3)(A)(ii) because the latter statute commits the decision to the agency’s sole discretion. The panel rejected Plaintiff’s contention that the district court had jurisdiction to hear his claim. The panel concluded that by all accounts, Plaintiff demonstrated remarkable courage by intervening to stop an active shooter,  and his efforts to care for his wife were equally worthy of praise. But however compelling his objections to USCIS’s denial of a waiver of inadmissibility may be, judicial review of that decision was barred by 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). View "JAIRO VEGA V. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP SERV, ET AL" on Justia Law

Lead plaintiff Maryland Electrical Industry Pension Fund alleged that HP and individual Defendants made fraudulent statements about HP’s printing supplies business. The district court concluded that the complaint, filed in 2020, was barred by the two-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. Section 1658(b)(1), because the public statements, loss in profits, and reductions in channel inventory at the heart of Maryland Electrical’s claims had all taken place by 2016.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The panel held that under the discovery rule discussed in Merck & Co., Inc. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633 (2010), a reasonably diligent plaintiff has not “discovered” one of the facts constituting a securities fraud violation until he can plead that fact with sufficient detail and particularity to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The panel held that a defendant establishes that a complaint is time-barred under Section 1658(b)(1) if it conclusively shows that either (1) the plaintiff could have pleaded an adequate complaint based on facts discovered prior to the critical date two years before the complaint was filed and failed to do so, or (2) the complaint does not include any facts necessary to plead an adequate complaint that was discovered following the critical date.   The panel held that Defendants’ allegedly fraudulent statements, on their own, were insufficient to start the clock on the statute of limitations. Instead, Maryland Electrical could not have discovered the facts necessary to plead its claims, including the “fact” of scienter, until after the publication of a Securities and Exchange Commission order in 2020. View "YORK COUNTY, ET AL V. HP, INC., ET AL" on Justia Law

Plaintiff provided tax- and estate-planning services. Plaintiff filed a claim in Baltimore County Orphans’ Court against Defendant’s Estate for fees allegedly due under contracts. After the Estate disallowed the claim, Plaintiff sued in federal court. After the Estate disallowed the claim, Plaintiff sued in federal court. The district court dismissed Plaintiff’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the suit was barred by the “probate exception” to federal court jurisdiction.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction Plaintiff’s suit alleging breach of contract. The panel held that none of the Goncalves categories applied to Plaintiff’s suit against the Estate. First, neither party contends that Plaintiff was seeking to annul or probate Bond’s will. Second, this suit does not require the federal courts to administer Defendant’s Estate. Valuing an estate to calculate contract damages is not administering an estate. Third, this suit does not require the federal courts to assume in rem jurisdiction over property in the custody of the probate court. If Plaintiff were to prevail at trial, he would be awarded an in personam judgment for money damages. The panel held that Plaintiff made out a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. The panel held that the district court erred in holding that Plaintiff’s suit was barred by the probate exception to federal jurisdiction. View "ROGER SILK V. BARON BOND, ET AL" on Justia Law

This case involves an insured who sued for breach of contract and for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing when its insurer denied coverage for business income losses that the insured incurred during the COVID19 pandemic. The insured alleged that the COVID-19 virus was present on its premises and that state government closure orders prevented it from fully making use of its insured property due to infections and prohibitions on elective medical procedures. The district court dismissed the insured’s suit for failure to state a claim.   The Ninth Circuit certified the following question to the Oregon Supreme Court: Can the actual or potential presence of the COVID-19 virus on an insured’s premises constitute “direct physical loss or damage to property” for purposes of coverage under a commercial property insurance policy? View "THE OREGON CLINIC, PC V. FIREMAN'S FUND INS. CO." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from his jury conviction and sentence for one count of conspiracy to transport, for profit, noncitizens who have entered or remain in the United States unlawfully, four counts of harboring such noncitizens for profit, and three counts of transportation of such noncitizens for profit, all in violation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1324. Defendant argued that his statements were involuntary because, just prior to the interrogation, an agent had shown him a plastic baggie containing drugs and threatened him with drug charges if he did not cooperate. After holding an evidentiary hearing, a magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the district court denied the motion to suppress.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress his post-arrest statements. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by wholly adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The panel wrote that the district court did what the Federal Magistrates Act requires: it indicated that it reviewed the record de novo, found no merit to Defendant’s objections, and summarily adopted the magistrate judge’s analysis in his report and recommendation.   The panel wrote that, after observing the implausibility of Defendant’s testimony and considering Defendant’s verbal and signed Miranda waiver, age, education level, and fluency in English, the magistrate judge properly recommended finding the statements made during the interrogation voluntary. Moreover, the panel could not hold that the magistrate judge was wrong to reject Defendant’s testimony, as the report and recommendation provided ample reason to find Defendant not credible, and the rest of the record supports the magistrate judge’s analysis. View "USA V. DEMETRIUS RAMOS" on Justia Law