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

Before her retirement, Plaintiff was employed by the Oregon Health Authority, and SEIU was the exclusive representative for her bargaining unit. Plaintiff never joined SEIU, but the State deducted union dues from her salary and remitted the dues to SEIU. Plaintiff alleged that SEIU forged her signature on a union membership agreement. Plaintiff demanded that the State and SEIU stop the dues deductions and return the withheld payments. After she retired, Plaintiff filed this action against State defendants and SEIU, alleging several constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for prospective relief against all defendants for lack of jurisdiction and her claims for retrospective relief against Service Employees International Union Local 503 (“SEIU”) for failure to allege state action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Because jurisdiction is a threshold issue, the panel first considered whether it could entertain Plaintiff’s claims for prospective declaratory and injunctive relief against all defendants. As to Plaintiff’s claims for prospective relief for violation of her First Amendment rights, the panel concluded that her fear of future harm was based on a series of interferences that were too speculative to establish a “case or controversy” for the prospective relief she sought.   Plaintiff’s theory that potential future unauthorized dues deductions chilled the exercise of her First Amendment rights was also too speculative to establish standing. The panel concluded that she lacked any concrete interest in her future wages or her right to be free from compelled union speech that were threatened by the alleged lack of procedural safeguards. View "JODEE WRIGHT V. SEIU LOCAL 503, ET AL" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleges that Schwab Charitable, its board of directors, and its Investment Oversight Committee breached their fiduciary duties under California law by partnering with Schwab & Co.—a legally separate but closely related company—for brokerage, custodial, and administrative services. Plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. After Defendants moved to dismiss, the district court held that Plaintiff lacked standing under Article III and statutory standing under California law. The district court allowed Plaintiff to amend his complaint, but he notified the district court that he did not intend to do so, and instead wished to appeal. The district court then entered judgment for the defendants. Plaintiff timely appealed.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that Plaintiff did not have Article III standing to sue Schwab Charitable Fund for allegedly breaching its fiduciary duties by, among other things, deducting excessive fees from Plaintiff’s donor-advised fund. The panel held that it need not decide whether Plaintiff’s arguments, regarding his purported need to contribute more to the DAF and related impact on his reputation and expressive rights, were cognizable in general because Plaintiff did not allege that he had experienced or will experience any of these purported injuries. The panel concluded that Plaintiff had not adequately alleged standing based on these theories of injury. View "PHILIP PINKERT V. SCHWAB CHARITABLE FUND, ET AL" on Justia Law

Plaintiff is an individual provider (“IP”) of in-home care for her disabled son. Under Washington law, IPs are considered public employees for the purpose of collective bargaining, and they are represented by Service Employees International Union 775 (“SEIU”). Plaintiff did not join the union, but on two occasions the State withheld dues from her paycheck.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all of Plaintiff’s claims against Public Partnerships LLC (“PPL”) and Public Consulting Group, Inc. (“PCG”) (collectively “private defendants”), and the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Washington Governor Inslee and Secretary Strange of the Department of Social and Health Services (collectively “state defendants”), in Plaintiff’s action alleging that Defendants violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and engaged in the willful withholding of her wages in violation of state law.   The panel held that Plaintiff did not have standing to bring any claims for prospective relief. The panel further held that, although the district court erred in holding that PPL and PCG were not state actors, Plaintiff had not alleged facts sufficient to support a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim or a claim for violation of state law. Plaintiff alleged that PPL and PCG violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights because they deprived her of her liberty interest under the First Amendment without adequate procedural safeguards. The panel held that Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to establish that PPL and PCG can be considered state actors for the purpose of her 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 action. Plaintiff met both parts of the two-prong test for determining whether state action exists. View "CINDY OCHOA V. PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP, INC., ET AL" on Justia Law

After the district court entered default against Defendant on Plaintiff’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Unruh Act, it ordered Vo to show cause why it should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. After considering Vo’s response, the district court elected to decline supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c)(4). The district court determined that there were exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons justifying this exercise of its discretion.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s California Unruh Civil Rights Act claim against Defendant. The panel held that under Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2021), in order to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in a joint ADA and Unruh Act suit, the district court must properly articulate why the circumstances of the case are exceptional.   The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion. First, there were exceptional circumstances regarding comity and fairness in allowing Plaintiff to evade California’s heightened procedural requirements for Unruh Act claims by bringing her claims in federal court. Second, unlike in Arroyo, the district court declined supplemental jurisdiction well before it ruled on the merits of the ADA claim, meaning that the Gibbs values could be effectuated. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that there were compelling reasons to decline jurisdiction over the Unruh Act claim. The panel rejected Plaintiff’s argument that the district court’s order was not sufficiently case-specific. View "THANH VO V. JOHN CHOI" on Justia Law

In an action brought by the Spirit of Aloha Temple (“Plaintiffs”) challenging the County of Maui Planning Commission’s denial of its application for a special use permit to hold religious services and other events on agriculturally zoned property, the panel reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment against Plaintiffs on their facial prior restraint challenge; held that the district court improperly dismissed the remaining claims on appeal under the doctrine of collateral estoppel; vacated the district court’s summary judgment on costs and the appealed religious liberties claims; and remanded to the district court for further proceedings.   Plaintiffs facially challenged the zoning scheme as a prior restraint on their First Amendment rights. The panel held that Plaintiffs may bring a facial prior restraint challenge. Because the County’s special use permitting scheme was expressly “more onerous” on conduct protected by the First Amendment, the effect on religious expression was not merely “incidental” and thus had a sufficient nexus to expression for Plaintiffs to bring a facial challenge. The panel further held that the County’s permitting scheme granted permitting officials an impermissible degree of discretion, and therefore, failed to qualify as a valid time, place, and manner restriction on speech. Thus, the challenged regulation violated the First Amendment.   The panel held that the district court erred in holding that the Commission’s findings on strict scrutiny collaterally estop Plaintiffs’ substantial-burden and nondiscrimination Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) claims, Free Exercise claims, and Equal Protection claims. View "SPIRIT OF ALOHA TEMPLE, ET AL V. COUNTY OF MAUI, ET AL" on Justia Law

Defendant, a Mexican citizen and United States legal permanent resident, was arrested while attempting to sell five pounds of methamphetamine to a confidential informant. He was charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine—both offenses for which Defendant could be removed from the United States were he convicted. Defendant pleaded guilty to the conspiracy count. The Government then dismissed the possession with intent to distribute count. The district court denied on the merits Defendant’s first and second claims in the Section 2255 motion; it denied the third claim on the ground that Defendant, through his plea agreement, had waived his right to bring the claim in a post-conviction proceeding.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment on the first claim, affirmed the district court’s judgment on the second and third claims, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the first claim. The panel wrote that because the claim attacks whether Defendant had knowledge of the effect of his guilty plea, it was not waived by Defendant’s collateral-attack waiver. The panel held that the record does not conclusively establish that Defendant is entitled to no relief on his first claim and that it was therefore an abuse of discretion to deny the first claim without an evidentiary hearing.   Because the record does not contain any evidence showing that Defendant’s attorney rendered deficient performance under Strickland, the panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Defendant’s second claim without an evidentiary hearing as conclusively disproved by the record. View "USA V. COSME RODRIGUEZ" on Justia Law

Defendant is serving a lengthy prison sentence for armed robbery. He was arrested with tens of thousands of dollars in cash. However, pertaining to this case, the government's case at trial fell apart based on prosecutorial misconduct. The government never initiated civil forfeiture proceedings.In this case focused on who has a right to the money seized from Defendant upon his arrest, the Ninth Circuit held that neither party can prove they are entitled to it. Defendant is not entitled to the money because there is considerable evidence the money was stolen. The government is not entitled to the money because did not follow the necessary procedures. View "USA V. BRIAN WRIGHT" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Santa Maria Water District (collectively, the “Agencies”) in an action brought by San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper and Los Padres ForestWatch (“Plaintiffs”), claiming that the Agencies’ operation of Twitchell Dam interfered with Southern California Steelhead’s reproductive migration, which constituted an unlawful take in violation of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”).   The panel held that under PL 774, the Agencies had discretion to release water from Twitchell Dam to avoid take of endangered Southern California Steelhead. The panel held that PL 774 expressly authorized Twitchell Dam to be operated for “other purposes” beyond the enumerated purposes. As a secondary priority, PL 774 also required the Agencies operate the dam substantially in accordance with the Secretary’s Report. The statutory requirement of substantial compliance—rather than strict compliance—with the Secretary’s Report explicitly grants discretion to the Agencies to adjust the dam’s flow rate.   The panel held that this interpretation is buttressed by the principles of statutory construction. Because PL 774 and the ESA can easily be read to work in harmony, it was the panel’s duty to do so. Here, there is no clear Congressional intent to preclude the dam from being operated to avoid take of Southern California Steelhead. There is no implied conflict between PL 774 and the ESA. Twitchell Dam can readily be operated to provide modest releases at certain times of the year and during certain water years, while still satisfying the dam’s primary purpose of conserving water for consumptive purposes. View "SAN LUIS OBISPO COASTKEEPER, ET AL V. SANTA MARIA VALLEY WATER CONSE, ET AL" on Justia Law

Appellant Smart Capital Investments1 leased several floors of a commercial building in downtown Los Angeles to Appellee Hawkeye Entertainment, LLC. After a rocky relationship developed, Smart Capital took steps to terminate the lease alleging that Hawkeye had committed numerous breaches. Hawkeye failed to resolve Smart Capital’s concerns and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, seeking to assume the lease under 11 U.S.C. Section 365 to prevent eviction. The bankruptcy court allowed Hawkeye to assume the lease over Smart Capital’s objection, and the district court affirmed. Smart Capital now appeals, arguing that the bankruptcy court erred by not requiring Hawkeye to provide “adequate assurances of future performance” of the lease, as required under 11 U.S.C. Section 365.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order allowing Hawkeye Entertainment, LLC, a Chapter 11 debtor, to assume an unexpired commercial lease under 11 U.S.C. Section 365. The panel held that Section 365(b)(1) applies where a default has occurred, regardless of whether that default has been resolved or is ongoing. The panel also held that “default” was not limited to material defaults that would trigger forfeiture of the lease under California landlord-tenant law. The panel concluded, therefore, that Section 365(b)(1) was triggered in this case. The panel further held, however, that the bankruptcy court’s failure to analyze Section 365(b)(1)’s curative requirements was harmless error. View "IN RE: SMART CAPITAL INVS. I, LLC, ET AL V. HAWKEYE ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, ET AL" on Justia Law

Petitioner was removed to Mexico in 2008, partly because of a California conviction for drug possession. In 2018, a California court expunged that conviction under California’s rehabilitative statute, and Petitioner sought to reopen his immigration proceedings. An immigration judge and the BIA denied the motion to reopen, and Petitioner sought review in this court.   Denying in part and granting in part and remanding, the panel held that: (1) the vacatur of a conviction underlying a removal order does not excuse a late motion to reopen, and therefore, Petitioner’s motion to reopen was untimely; (2) the BIA acted within its discretion in concluding that Petitioner failed to act with sufficient diligence to warrant equitable tolling of the motion-to-reopen deadline; and (3) the BIA erred as a matter of law in denying sua sponte reopening.   Because a motion to reopen must generally be filed within 90 days of a final order of removal, Petitioner’s motion was approximately a decade late. The panel rejected Petitioner’s argument, observing that it was bound by Perez-Camacho v. Garland, 42 F.4th 1103 (9th Cir. 2022), in which this court recently held that the Cardoso-Tlaseca rule applies only to timely motions to reopen; it does not excuse late filing. The panel also concluded that, even if it were not bound, it would reach the same result. The panel explained that the statute and regulation governing motions to reopen contain explicit exceptions to the timeliness requirement, but there is no exception for persons removed pursuant to an unlawfully executed order, and the codified exceptions strongly suggest that Congress and the agency did not intend that exception. View "JOSE LARA-GARCIA V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law