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

The plaintiffs, parents of Idaho school children, sought reimbursement for fees associated with educational and extracurricular activities within Idaho public school districts. They argued that these fees were improperly assessed because the Idaho Constitution mandates "free common schools," and that the payment of such fees constituted a taking of property without due process, violating the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.The United States District Court for the District of Idaho initially denied the school districts' motion for summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiffs had a property interest in a free education under the Idaho Constitution. However, the case was later reassigned to a different district judge, who revisited the issue. The second district judge granted summary judgment in favor of the school districts, concluding that the plaintiffs did not possess a property right protected by the Takings Clause because the right to a free public education in Idaho does not constitute a vested private property interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment. The court held that the Idaho Constitution does not create a vested private property interest in specific educational benefits. It determined that public education in Idaho lacks the essential characteristics of private property, such as the right to possess, use, dispose of, or sell. Therefore, money paid to satisfy fees related to supplemental educational services is not subject to a Takings Clause claim. The court also clarified that a second district judge should not reconsider a prior judge's ruling unless specific conditions are met, but found any procedural error in this case to be harmless. View "Zeyen v. Bonneville Joint District" on Justia Law

The case involves EPD Investment Co., LLC (EPD) and its owner, Jerrold S. Pressman, who were found to have operated a Ponzi scheme. EPD was forced into Chapter 7 bankruptcy by its creditors, and the Trustee, Jason M. Rund, filed an adversary proceeding against Poshow Ann Kirkland and her husband, John Kirkland, seeking to avoid fraudulent transfers made by EPD to John. John had assigned his interest in EPD to the Bright Conscience Trust, for which Ann is the trustee.The United States District Court for the Central District of California bifurcated the trial, separating the claims against John and Ann. A jury trial was conducted for the claims against John, resulting in a verdict that EPD was a Ponzi scheme but that John received payments in good faith and for reasonably equivalent value. The bankruptcy court ruled that the jury's findings would be binding in the Trustee's claims against Ann. Ann appealed the judgment, particularly challenging the jury's finding that EPD was a Ponzi scheme.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Ann had standing to appeal due to her significant involvement in the case and her interest in the issues presented. The court rejected Ann's argument that the district court erred by not including a mens rea instruction requiring the jury to find that Pressman knew he was operating a Ponzi scheme that would eventually collapse. The court held that fraudulent intent could be inferred from the existence of a Ponzi scheme established through objective criteria. The court also rejected Ann's argument that the district court erred by instructing the jury that lenders are investors for purposes of a Ponzi scheme.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order affirming the judgment of the bankruptcy court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In re: EPD INVESTMENT COMPANY V. KIRKLAND" on Justia Law

C.R. Bard, Inc. (Bard), a medical device company, held patents on a vascular graft and entered into a licensing agreement with Atrium Medical Corporation (Atrium) to settle a patent infringement lawsuit. The agreement required Atrium to pay Bard a 15% per-unit royalty on U.S. sales until the U.S. patent expired in 2019 and on Canadian sales until the Canadian patent expired in 2024. Additionally, Atrium was to pay a minimum royalty of $3.75 million per quarter until the FDA approved the iCast stent for vascular use or rescinded its approval for all uses. Atrium ceased minimum royalty payments after the U.S. patent expired, leading Bard to sue for breach of contract.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona held a bench trial and found that the minimum royalty provision was primarily intended to compensate Bard for U.S. sales, thus constituting patent misuse under Brulotte v. Thys Co. The court concluded that the provision violated Brulotte because it effectively extended royalties beyond the patent's expiration based on the parties' motivations during negotiations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment. The appellate court clarified that the Brulotte rule requires examining whether a contract explicitly provides for royalties on the use of a patented invention after the patent's expiration. The court held that the licensing agreement did not violate Brulotte because it provided for U.S. royalties only until the U.S. patent expired and Canadian royalties until the Canadian patent expired. The minimum royalty payments were not tied to post-expiration use of the U.S. patent but were instead based on Canadian sales, which continued to be valid under the Canadian patent. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court erred by considering the parties' subjective motivations and reversed the judgment for Atrium on Bard’s breach of contract claim. View "C.R. BARD, INC. V. ATRIUM MEDICAL CORPORATION" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, dog owners, alleged that Nutramax Laboratories falsely marketed their product, Cosequin, as promoting healthy joints in dogs, despite evidence suggesting it provided no such benefits. They claimed this violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). The district court certified a class of California purchasers who were exposed to the allegedly misleading statements on Cosequin’s packaging.The United States District Court for the Central District of California certified the class, relying on the proposed damages model of Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Jean-Pierre Dubé, who had not yet executed his model. Nutramax challenged this, arguing that the model needed to be applied to the class to demonstrate that damages were susceptible to common proof. The district court found Dr. Dubé’s model sufficiently reliable for class certification purposes and concluded that common questions predominated regarding injury. Nutramax also contended that the element of reliance was not susceptible to common proof, but the district court found that classwide reliance could be established through proof of material misrepresentation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that there is no general requirement for an expert to apply a reliable damages model to the proposed class to demonstrate that damages are susceptible to common proof at the class certification stage. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Dr. Dubé’s proposed model sufficiently sound. Additionally, the court rejected Nutramax’s argument regarding reliance, affirming that classwide reliance could be established under the CLRA through proof of material misrepresentation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of class certification. View "LYTLE V. NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES, INC." on Justia Law

Derek Steven Trumbull pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was found with a Glock 17 loaded with a magazine containing seventeen rounds of nine-millimeter ammunition, and he also had two spare magazines. Trumbull had multiple prior felony convictions. He was indicted on federal charges and pled guilty without a plea agreement.The United States District Court for the District of Montana calculated Trumbull’s base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B), which includes an increase for offenses involving a semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a large capacity magazine. The court applied Application Note 2 of the commentary to § 2K2.1, which defines a large capacity magazine as one that can accept more than fifteen rounds. Trumbull objected, arguing that Application Note 2 was an invalid interpretation under Kisor v. Wilkie. The district court overruled his objection and sentenced him to twenty-four months’ imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Application Note 2’s definition of “large capacity magazine” warrants deference under Kisor because the term is ambiguous, the interpretation is reasonable, and it meets the criteria for deference. The court found that the district court did not err in applying § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) as interpreted by Application Note 2 to Trumbull’s base offense level. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. View "United States v. Trumbull" on Justia Law

The case involves the plaintiffs, including the estate of Carson Bride and three minors, who suffered severe harassment and bullying through the YOLO app, leading to emotional distress and, in Carson Bride's case, suicide. YOLO Technologies developed an anonymous messaging app that promised to unmask and ban users who engaged in bullying or harassment but allegedly failed to do so. The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against YOLO, claiming violations of state tort and product liability laws.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, holding that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunized YOLO from liability. The court found that the claims sought to hold YOLO responsible for third-party content posted on its app, which is protected under the CDA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' misrepresentation claims, holding that these claims were based on YOLO's promise to unmask and ban abusive users, not on a failure to moderate content. The court found that the misrepresentation claims were analogous to a breach of promise, which is not protected by Section 230. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' product liability claims, holding that Section 230 precludes liability because these claims attempted to hold YOLO responsible as a publisher of third-party content. The court concluded that the product liability claims were essentially about the failure to moderate content, which is protected under the CDA. View "Estate of Bride v. Yolo Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

In February 2016, two Seattle police officers, Scott Miller and Michael Spaulding, fatally shot Che Andre Taylor during an attempted arrest. Kshama Sawant, a Seattle City Council member, publicly referred to the incident as a "blatant murder" and later reiterated that Taylor was "murdered by the police." Following an inquest, prosecutors declined to file charges against the officers due to insufficient evidence of malice. Miller and Spaulding subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging defamation and outrage under state law, as well as a federal defamation claim against Sawant.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the federal defamation claim but retained jurisdiction over the state law claims. The court later granted Sawant's motion for summary judgment on the state law claims and awarded her expert witness deposition expenses, including fees for preparation time. Miller and Spaulding appealed the decision, challenging the award of expert witness fees and the admissibility of the expert's opinions.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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 allows for the recovery of reasonable expenses for time an expert witness spends preparing for a deposition. The court joined other circuits in concluding that such preparation fees are recoverable under Rule 26. The court found that the expert witness deposition preparation fees awarded to Sawant were reasonable and did not result in manifest injustice. The Ninth Circuit also noted that objections to the admissibility of the expert's opinions did not negate the obligation to pay a reasonable fee under Rule 26. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and the award of expert witness deposition expenses. View "Miller v. Sawant" on Justia Law

Michael Mayes filed a complaint against American Hallmark Insurance Company in state court. American Hallmark received a copy of the complaint and removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction before being formally served. Mayes moved to remand the case, arguing that removal was improper because American Hallmark had not yet been formally served.A magistrate judge concluded that 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) does not require formal service before removal and recommended denying the motion to remand. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon reviewed the issue de novo and agreed with the magistrate judge’s interpretation, denying Mayes’ motion to remand.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 under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), a defendant may remove a state-court civil action once it receives a copy of the complaint, without waiting for formal service. The court clarified that the statute sets a deadline for removal but does not establish a "window" that prohibits removal before formal service. The court also noted that the statutory context and precedent from other circuit courts support this interpretation. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Mayes' motion to remand. View "Mayes v. American Hallmark Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Jose Emilio Ronderos, applied for a job with USF Reddaway, Inc. and Yellow Corporation (collectively, "Reddaway") and was required to sign an arbitration agreement as part of the application process. Ronderos later filed employment-related claims against Reddaway, alleging age and disability discrimination, retaliation, and other violations under California law. Ronderos claimed that the arbitration agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Reddaway's motion to compel arbitration. The court found that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was a contract of adhesion presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, involved significant oppression, and contained a substantively opaque cost-splitting provision. The court also found that the agreement was substantively unconscionable due to its one-sided filing provision and preliminary injunction carve-out, which unfairly favored Reddaway. The district court declined to sever the unconscionable provisions and enforce the remainder of the agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. It held that the agreement involved significant oppression and some surprise, making it procedurally unconscionable. The court also found that the one-sided filing provision and preliminary injunction carve-out were substantively unconscionable. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to sever the unconscionable provisions and affirmed the denial of Reddaway's motion to compel arbitration. View "Ronderos v. USF Reddaway, Inc." on Justia Law

Timberly Hughes, a U.S. citizen, failed to report her foreign bank accounts for the years 2010 through 2013, as required under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. Hughes owned two companies in New Zealand and had financial interests in their accounts. The United States assessed penalties against her for willful failure to file the required Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBARs) for 2012 and 2013, totaling $678,899. Hughes did not pay, leading the United States to file suit in federal court.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held a bench trial and found that Hughes willfully failed to file FBARs for 2012 and 2013 but not for 2010 and 2011. The court concluded that "willfulness" for civil FBAR penalties could be shown through recklessness or willful blindness, following the Supreme Court's reasoning in Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr. The court entered a final judgment against Hughes for $238,125.19 in substantive penalties but denied the United States' request for prejudgment interest and late payment penalties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit agreed that "willfulness" for civil FBAR penalties includes both knowing and reckless violations, aligning with the reasoning in Safeco and the consensus of other circuits. The court found that Hughes's failure to file was willful for 2012 and 2013, as she had acknowledged the requirement on her tax returns but failed to comply. The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's judgment and rejected Hughes's argument that subjective intent was necessary to establish willfulness. View "USA V. HUGHES" on Justia Law