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

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) brought an action against CashCall, Inc., alleging that CashCall engaged in unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices by attempting to collect interest and fees it was not legally entitled to. The CFPB sought legal restitution for the affected consumers. CashCall argued that the restitution order triggered its Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.The United States District Court for the Central District of California initially granted partial summary judgment to the CFPB on liability and conducted a bench trial to determine the appropriate remedy. The court imposed a civil penalty but declined to order restitution. Both parties appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of liability but vacated the civil penalty and remanded for further proceedings regarding restitution.On remand, the district court ordered CashCall to pay over $134 million in legal restitution. CashCall appealed again, contending that the restitution order violated its Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit assumed, without deciding, that CashCall had a right to a jury trial but concluded that CashCall had waived that right by voluntarily participating in the initial bench trial and not objecting to the second bench trial. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the doctrines of judicial estoppel and waiver did not preclude the CFPB from seeking legal restitution. Additionally, the court found that the district court did not overstate CashCall’s unjust gains and properly used CashCall’s net revenues as a basis for measuring unjust gains. Finally, the court rejected CashCall’s argument that the CFPB’s funding mechanism violated the Appropriations Clause.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU V. CASHCALL, INC." on Justia Law

Andrew Grimm parked his car on a downtown street in Portland, Oregon, and paid for parking through a mobile app for a limited time. He left the car there for seven days, during which City parking enforcement officers issued multiple parking citations and placed them on the car’s windshield. After five days, an officer added a red slip warning that the car would be towed if not moved. Grimm did not move the car, and two days later, the car was towed.Grimm sued the City of Portland, claiming that the City’s procedures for notifying him of the impending tow were deficient under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted summary judgment in favor of the City, holding that the City’s notice procedures were reasonable. The court found that although the accumulation of citations might have indicated that Grimm did not receive notice, no other form of notice was practicable.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the City’s notice, which included a red warning slip placed on the car’s windshield two days before the tow, was reasonably calculated to inform Grimm of the impending tow, satisfying the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court further held that the City did not have actual knowledge that its attempt to provide notice had failed simply because the citations and warning slip remained undisturbed on the car’s windshield. Therefore, the City was not required to take additional steps to notify Grimm. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City. View "GRIMM V. CITY OF PORTLAND" on Justia Law

Shawn Sheltra, an inmate with the Idaho Department of Corrections (IDOC), filed a formal grievance in March, identifying safety concerns and threats from other inmates in his housing unit. He warned that he would be attacked in April if he did not make an extortion payment. Despite being briefly isolated, Sheltra was returned to his housing unit and was attacked by another inmate in April. He subsequently filed a lawsuit, asserting violations of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments due to the defendants' failure to protect him from a known harm.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing the action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because Sheltra did not file a formal grievance after the April attack. The court also granted summary judgment for the defendants on Sheltra's official-capacity claims, as they were barred by the Eleventh Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and adopted the continuing-violations doctrine for purposes of administrative exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court held that a properly exhausted prison grievance asserting one continuing harm or a single course of conduct can exhaust events arising out of the same alleged violation that occur after the grievance was made. Applying this doctrine, the court concluded that Sheltra's attack was part of the same continuing harm or course of conduct described in his prison grievance before the attack. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's summary judgment on Sheltra's individual-capacity claims against the defendants. However, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants on Sheltra's official-capacity claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity. View "SHELTRA V. CHRISTENSEN" on Justia Law

Yaakov Markel, an Orthodox Jewish man, worked as a mashgiach for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (OU) from 2011 to 2018. His role involved supervising food preparation to ensure kosher compliance, particularly for grape products. Markel claimed that his supervisor, Rabbi Nachum Rabinowitz, promised him a promotion and a raise, which he did not receive, and that OU withheld certain overtime compensation. Markel resigned and filed suit, bringing wage and hour and fraud and misrepresentation claims against OU and Rabbi Rabinowitz.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, holding that the First Amendment’s ministerial exception barred Markel’s employment-related claims. The court determined that OU is a religious organization and that a mashgiach is considered a minister within Orthodox Judaism, thus invoking the ministerial exception.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that the ministerial exception categorically barred Markel’s claims because OU is a religious organization and a mashgiach is a minister. The court emphasized that the acceptance of revenue does not deprive an organization with a religious mission of First Amendment protections. The court also rejected Markel’s argument that the ministerial exception was inapplicable because his dispute involved only secular issues, noting that a religious institution’s decisions, even if facially secular, are often intertwined with religious doctrine. The court further held that the ministerial exception protects both religious organizations and their leaders from claims brought by ministerial employees. View "MARKEL V. UNION OF ORTHODOX JEWISH CONGREGATIONS OF AMERICA" on Justia Law

Larry Seng In was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm after a gun was found in his car during a traffic stop. In moved to suppress the gun, arguing that the officers' actions, particularly handcuffing him, escalated a valid Terry stop into an unlawful de facto arrest because they handcuffed him before having probable cause to believe he was prohibited from possessing the gun.The district court referred the motion to a magistrate judge, who held an evidentiary hearing and recommended denying the motion, concluding that the handcuffing was justified. However, the district court rejected this recommendation and granted In's motion to suppress, holding that the gun was obtained as a result of an unlawful de facto arrest without probable cause. The Government's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to this appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the traffic stop did not turn into a de facto arrest. The officers had a sufficient and reasonable basis to fear for their safety, justifying their decision to handcuff In during their investigation. The court noted that the presence of an unsecured gun in the car, In's initial dishonesty about the gun, and the location of the stop near a densely populated area contributed to the reasonableness of the officers' actions. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's order granting the suppression motion and remanded the case for trial. View "USA V. IN" on Justia Law

Michael Blake DeFrance was convicted of assaulting his girlfriend in 2013 under Montana Code Annotated section 45-5-206(1)(a), a misdemeanor. In 2018, he was found in possession of three firearms, leading to a federal indictment for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which prohibits firearm possession by individuals convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.The United States District Court for the District of Montana denied DeFrance's motion to dismiss the indictment, which argued that the Montana statute could be violated without the use of physical force. DeFrance was subsequently convicted and appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and applied the categorical approach to determine whether a conviction under Montana's PFMA statute qualifies as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). The court concluded that because the Montana statute can be violated by inflicting emotional distress rather than physical injury, it does not have, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force as required by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii). Consequently, the court held that DeFrance's conviction under the Montana statute does not qualify as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.The Ninth Circuit reversed DeFrance's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), vacated his sentence, and remanded the case for resentencing or other proceedings consistent with their opinion. View "USA V. DEFRANCE" on Justia Law

Residents of Humboldt County filed a putative class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the County’s system of administrative penalties and fees for cannabis abatement violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The County Code imposes daily fines of $6,000 to $10,000 for illegal cannabis cultivation. Plaintiffs claimed that the County charges landowners based on imprecise data or previous owners' conduct, causing emotional distress and financial burdens due to ongoing penalties and abatement costs.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case, concluding that plaintiffs lacked standing as they had not paid any fines, rendering the Eighth Amendment claim unripe. The court also found both facial and as-applied challenges untimely, reasoning that the statute of limitations began when the ordinance was enacted.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that plaintiffs’ claim under the Excessive Fines Clause was constitutionally ripe and that they had standing due to the imposition of penalties causing concrete injuries, including emotional distress and financial expenses. The court also found that prudential ripeness considerations supported allowing the litigation to proceed. The court determined that the statute of limitations for facial challenges begins when plaintiffs know of the actual injury, not when the ordinance is enacted. Thus, some plaintiffs’ facial challenges were timely. The court also found that several plaintiffs had timely as-applied challenges, except for Cyro Glad, whose claim was untimely.On the merits, the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiffs plausibly alleged a violation of the Excessive Fines Clause, as the penalties and demolition orders were punitive and potentially excessive. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the Eighth Amendment claim and remanded for further proceedings, affirming the dismissal only for Cyro Glad’s as-applied claim. View "THOMAS V. COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT" on Justia Law

LegalForce RAPC Worldwide, P.C. ("LegalForce USA"), a California S corporation operating legal services websites, sued LegalForce, Inc. ("LegalForce Japan"), a Japanese corporation providing legal software services, for trademark infringement. LegalForce USA alleged that LegalForce Japan's U.S. expansion plans, website ownership, and advertising and selling of equity infringed its trademark. The district court dismissed the website claims for lack of jurisdiction and the expansion plan claims as unripe. The claims concerning equity were dismissed for failure to state a claim.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed all claims except those related to the advertising and selling of equity. The court held that it had jurisdiction over these claims but dismissed them for failure to state a claim, reasoning that advertising and selling equity is not connected to the sale of goods or services and thus cannot constitute trademark infringement. The court also found that LegalForce USA failed to justify an extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that using a trademark in connection with the sale of equity does not constitute using the mark in connection with "goods or services" under the Lanham Act. The court also affirmed that LegalForce Japan's services in Japan could not satisfy the "in connection with" goods or services requirement under the Lanham Act, as the relevant conduct occurred outside U.S. territory. The court concluded that the Lanham Act does not apply extraterritorially in this context. View "LEGALFORCE RAPC WORLDWIDE, PC V. LEGALFORCE, INC." on Justia Law

Krish Singh was shot and seriously injured by Officer Brittany Smith-Petersen in Phoenix, Arizona. Smith-Petersen and another officer, Annie Batway, responded to a report of an attempted robbery with a knife. Upon arrival, Singh held a knife to his own neck and asked the officers to shoot him. Despite commands to drop the knife, Singh did not comply, and Smith-Petersen shot him. Singh sued the City of Phoenix, Smith-Petersen, and Batway, alleging excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state law claims.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted summary judgment in favor of Smith-Petersen on the § 1983 claim, holding that she was protected by qualified immunity. The court found that although a reasonable jury could find a constitutional violation, there was no clearly established law indicating that her use of force was objectively unreasonable. The district court remanded the state law claims to state court for resolution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment on the § 1983 claim, holding that the case of Glenn v. Washington County, which involved similar facts, provided clearly established law that should have put Smith-Petersen on notice that her use of deadly force was potentially unreasonable. The Ninth Circuit also reversed the district court’s order remanding the state law claims and remanded for reconsideration of whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. The court dismissed Smith-Petersen’s cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as it challenged the district court’s determination of genuine factual disputes, which is not reviewable on appeal. View "SINGH V. CITY OF PHOENIX" on Justia Law

Joshua Shuemake, a correctional officer, was prohibited from possessing firearms due to a no-contact order following an alleged assault on his former girlfriend. Despite this, he borrowed a handgun from his friend and co-worker, Luke Ulavale, to continue his private security job. The FBI, suspecting non-compliance with the order, searched Shuemake's residence and found two firearms, one of which was registered to Ulavale and had Shuemake's DNA on it. Ulavale initially lied to the FBI, claiming another friend had the gun, but later admitted under oath that he lent it to Shuemake and that they concocted a false story.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington admitted Ulavale's grand jury testimony after he claimed memory loss at trial. Shuemake was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm and obstruction of justice. He appealed, arguing that the district court erred in admitting Ulavale's grand jury testimony.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that under the prior inconsistent statement rule, Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A), a district court can admit an earlier sworn statement if a witness on the stand contradicts that statement. The court found that dubious claims of memory loss, as shown by inexplicable claims of faulty memory or evasive testimony, may be treated as inconsistencies under Rule 801(d)(1)(A). The court concluded that Ulavale's feigned memory loss made Rule 801(d)(1)(A) applicable and affirmed Shuemake's conviction for obstruction of justice. View "USA V. SHUEMAKE" on Justia Law