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

The photographer Christian Zervos created the Zervos Catalogue of the works of Pablo Picasso, which was originally published under the label of Cahiers d’Art. In 1979, Sicre de Fontbrune acquired the rights for the business capital of Cahiers d’Art. Alan Wofsy and Alan Wofsy & Associates (collectively “Wofsy”) produced a series of books, titled “The Picasso Project,” that contained reproductions of photographs from the Zervos Catalogue.   The French judgment found that Wofsy had violated an astreinte – a French legal device that imposed money damages for the continued use of copyrighted photographs of Pablo Picasso’s works. Sicre de Fontbrune had obtained hat astreintre as a form of relief in a 2001 French judgment finding that the photographs’ copyrights were infringed. The district court granted summary judgment for Wofsy based on a defense to recognition under California’s Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgment Recognition Act, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Sections 1713-1725, namely, the defense that the French judgment was repugnant to United States public policy protecting free expression.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment entered for Defendants. The court held that in international diversity cases, such as this one, the enforceability of foreign judgments is generally governed by the law of the state in which enforcement is sought; and the California Recognition Act governed. Further, the court held that Wofsy was not entitled to summary judgment based on the public policy defense. No other ground for nonrecognition at issue in this appeal supplied an alternative basis for affirming the judgment. View "VINCENT DE FONTBRUNE V. ALAN WOFSY" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, an individual and his telemarketing companies, sued the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), over its alleged prohibition of most uses in telemarketing of soundboard technology.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction of Plaintiffs’ complaint against the FTC based on Plaintiffs’ failure to adequately plead Article III standing.   The court rejected the FTC’s contention that the district court’s order was not final and appealable. The panel held that there was appellate jurisdiction based on the principles set forth in WMX Technologies, Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 1997), and subsequent precedents. The court concluded that based on the whole record – including the failure to grant leave to amend and the clerk’s immediate entry of final judgment – the district court’s dismissal was final.   The court agreed with the district court that Plaintiffs failed to plead facts establishing an injury in fact for purposes of standing under Article III of the Constitution. The court held that the complaint provided virtually no information about Plaintiffs’ use or concrete plans to use soundboard technology in a manner that contravened FTC regulations, nor did it offer any indication that the threat of FTC enforcement against them was credible or imminent. View "UNIFIED DATA SERVICES, LLC V. FTC" on Justia Law

The United States appealed from the district court’s dismissal of an indictment charging Defendant with illegal reentry after removal, in violation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1326. According to the district court, defects in the notice to appear (“NTA”)—which initiated the immigration proceedings against Defendant resulting in his eventual removal from the United States— deprived the immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction to effect the removal in the first place, rendering the entire immigration proceeding “void ab initio.”   The Ninth Circuit held, consistent with precedent and that of every other circuit to consider this issue, that the failure of an NTA to include time and date information does not deprive the immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and thus the defendant’s removal was not “void ab initio,” as the district court determined.   The court explained that hat 8 C.F.R. Section 1003.14(a)—a regulation by which the Attorney General purported to condition the “jurisdiction” of immigration courts upon the filing of a charging document, including NTAs—is a claim-processing rule not implicating the court’s adjudicatory authority. The en banc court read Section 1003.14(a)’s reference to “jurisdiction” in a purely colloquial sense. The en banc court wrote that although the statutory definition of an NTA requires the date and time of the removal hearing, 8 U.S.C. Section 1229(a)(1)(G)(i), this provision chiefly concerns the notice the government must provide noncitizens regarding their removal proceedings, not the authority of immigration courts to conduct those proceedings. View "USA V. JUAN BASTIDE-HERNANDEZ" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Ross Dress for Less, Inc. sued Makarios seeking declaratory relief regarding its end-of-lease obligations in connection with Ross’s lease of the Richmond Building, as to which Makarios had received an assignment of rights and thereafter acted as Ross’s landlord. Makarios demanded a jury trial on its counterclaims. Ross filed a document waiving its right to a jury trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 38. Makarios moved to withdraw its jury demand. Ross argued it was entitled to rely on Makarios’s request for a jury. The district court held a four-day Phase II bench trial and entered judgment in favor of Makarios.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling granting Defendant’s motion to withdraw its demand for a jury trial. The court explained that because jurisdiction in the district court was based on diversity of citizenship, Oregon substantive law and federal procedural law governed.   The court wrote that neither party argued that the waiver in Section 13.04 of the lease was unknowing or involuntary, but the parties disagreed on the scope of the provisions. The court held that the ordinary meaning of Section 13.04 was clear and it established that Ross waived its right to a jury trial on counterclaims filed by Makarios. The court rejected Ross’s argument that even if it contractually waived its jury trial right, it was still entitled to rely on Makarios’s jury demand under Rules 38(d) and 39(a).  The court held that typically, the combination of Rules 38(d) and 39(a) prevents a party from unilaterally withdrawing its jury demand, even when no other party has requested a jury trial. View "ROSS DRESS FOR LESS, INC. V. MAKARIOS-OREGON, LLC" on Justia Law

Produce Pay holds a Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act ("PACA") license issued by the United States Department of Agriculture. Produce Pay and Izguerra agreed that Izguerra, through Produce Pay’s online platform, would receive and accept produce from a grower and sell the produce to retailers on Produce Pay's behalf. Izguerra bought 1,600 cartons of avocados from Produce Pay through its online platform and, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, received the avocados directly from the Mexican grower. Produce Pay issued Izguerra an invoice representing the net proceeds from the avocados, but Izguerra did not fully pay. The district court dismissed Produce Pay’s PACA claims on the ground that, as a matter of law, Produce Pay was not a seller of wholesale produce, and thus not entitled to PACA protections, because the transaction between Produce Pay and Izguerra was a secured loan rather than a true sale.   The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6) dismissal. The court held that Produce Pay alleged the five preliminary elements of a PACA claim by alleging that the avocados were perishable, Izguerra was a dealer of avocados, the transaction occurred in contemplation of interstate or foreign commerce, Produce Pay did not receive full payment, and the invoice for the avocados stated that they were sold subject to a PACA statutory trust. Further, Produce Pay plausibly alleged that it was a seller or supplier under PACA, rather than only a lender, because Produce Pay alleged facts that resembled a consignment transaction between it and Izguerra and suggested that Produce Pay functioned as a seller. View "PRODUCE PAY, INC. V. IZGUERRA PRODUCE, INC." on Justia Law

The Arizona Department of Corrections issued Order 914, under which the Department may prohibit inmates from receiving mail containing “sexually explicit material.” The Department invoked the order to redact several issues of Prison Legal News, a monthly journal for prison inmates that covers developments in the criminal justice system. The publisher of Prison Legal News sued the Department under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, arguing that Order 914 violates the First Amendment on its face and as applied to Prison Legal News. The district court granted summary judgment to the publisher and entered a permanent injunction requiring the Department to amend its order and allow distribution of the issues that had been censored.   The Ninth Circuit reversed in part, affirmed in part, vacated the permanent injunction in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The court concluded that most of the order’s relevant prohibitions are facially constitutional under the First Amendment and that most of the as-applied challenges lack merit.   The court held that the penological interests in jail security and rehabilitation were legitimate and the order was neutral in the sense relevant to the analysis set forth in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). The court determined, however, that one aspect of the order swept more broadly than could be explained by the Department’s penological objectives: section 1.2.17’s ban on content that “may” cause sexual arousal or be suggestive of sex. That provision was not rationally related to the Department’s interests. As to one portion of the May 2017 issue, the court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for the Department. View "PRISON LEGAL NEWS V. CHARLES RYAN" on Justia Law

Petitioner was deported in 1991 but illegally reentered the next week. In 2001, he applied for adjustment, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) denied that application in 2019, and Rivera Vega’s prior removal order was reinstated. An asylum officer then determined that Rivera Vega lacked a reasonable fear of persecution or torture if returned to Mexico, and an IJ affirmed.Denying Petitioner’s petition for review, the Ninth Circuit held that: 1) the permanent inadmissibility bar of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (“IIRIRA”) applied retroactively to Petitioner such that he was ineligible for adjustment of status; 2) his prior removal order was properly reinstated; 3) his statutory right to counsel in reasonable fear proceedings was not violated, and 4) the IJ properly rejected his claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).   Specifically, the court held that the permanent inadmissibility bar applies retroactively to unlawful reentries made before IIRIRA’s effective date—provided the alien failed to apply for adjustment before that date— because doing so does not impose a new legal consequence based on past conduct. First, the court explained that Petitioner did not have a vested right in adjustment relief. Second, IIRIRA imposed a new legal consequence on Petitioner not for his pre-IIRIRA illegal reentry but because of his illegal presence after IIRIRA. Lastly, given IIRIRA’s aims of toeing a harder line on immigration and limiting the availability of discretionary relief, it would be anomalous for Petitioner to obtain a perpetual right to seek relief at his own convenience. View "JORGE RIVERA VEGA V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

Petitioner petitioned for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief from removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) The BIA affirmed based upon the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.   The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review because three out of four inconsistencies relied upon by the BIA are not supported by the record. The court remanded on an open record for the BIA to determine in the first instance whether the remaining inconsistency is sufficient to support the adverse credibility determination.   The court held that substantial evidence did not support the IJ’s reliance upon insufficient corroborating evidence as a basis for finding Petitioner not credible because the IJ categorically ignored documents that were consistent with Petitioner’s testimony. The court explained that by ignoring such evidence, the IJ did not consider “the totality of the circumstances” when making the adverse credibility determination.   The court held that the BIA further erred by misinterpreting the IJ’s holding regarding corroborating evidence as relying on 8 U.S.C. Section 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii), and by erroneously characterizing the IJ’s holding as concluding that Petitioner did not provide sufficient corroborating evidence to sustain his burden of proof independent of his own non-credible testimony when the IJ actually relied upon the lack of documentation as one factor supporting its adverse credibility determination under 8 U.S.C. Section 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The court did not reach the BIA’s holding concerning Petitioner’s eligibility for protection under CAT. View "HAYK BARSEGHYAN V. MERRICK GARLAND" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit certified to the Supreme Court of California the following three questions of state law: (1) Is time spent on an employer’s premises in a personal vehicle and waiting to scan an identification badge, have security guards peer into the vehicle, and then exit a Security Gate compensable as “hours worked” within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 16? (2) Is time spent on the employer’s premises in a personal vehicle, driving between the Security Gate and the employee parking lots, while subject to certain rules from the employer, compensable as “hours worked” or as “employer-mandated travel” within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 16? (3) Is time spent on the employer’s premises, when workers are prohibited from leaving but not required to engage in employer-mandated activities, compensable as “hours worked” within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 16, or under California Labor Code Section 1194 when that time was designated as an unpaid “meal period” under a qualifying collective bargaining agreement? View "GEORGE HUERTA V. CSI ELEC. CONTRACTORS, INC" on Justia Law

The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (“LADOT”) required e-scooter operators to provide vehicle location data through an application programming interface called Mobility Data Specification (“MDS”). Used in conjunction with the operators’ smartphone applications, MDS automatically compiles real-time data on each e-scooter’s location by collecting the start and end points and times of each ride taken.   The Ninth Circuit amended its prior opinion affirming the district court’s order dismissing, for failure to state a claim, an action brought by an e-scooter user alleging that the City of Los Angeles’ e-scooter permitting program violates the Fourth Amendment and California law.   The court first held that Plaintiff’s complaint alleged facts giving rise to Article III standing and therefore the court rejected LADOT’s assertion that the complaint was beyond the court’s constitutional purview because it was premised on a hypothetical invasion of privacy that might never occur. Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff as it was required to do at the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) stage, the proper reading of the complaint was that Plaintiff alleged that the collection of the MDS location data itself—without more—violated his constitutional rights.   The court concluded that the third-party doctrine, which provides that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties, foreclosed Plaintiff’s claim of a reasonable expectation of privacy over the MDS data. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim under the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“CalECPA”) on the grounds that the statute did not provide Plaintiff with authorization to bring an independent action to enforce its provisions. View "JUSTIN SANCHEZ V. LADOT" on Justia Law