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

The jury returned a verdict against Swisher International, Inc., on Sherman Act and breach of contract claims brought by Trendsettah USA, Inc.Reversing in part, the court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting Swisher’s Rule 60(d) motion based on fraud on the court. The court held that fraud on the court must be established by clear and convincing evidence. The relevant inquiry is whether the fraudulent conduct harmed the integrity of the judicial process rather than whether it prejudiced the opposing party. A party must show willful deception, and mere nondisclosure of evidence is typically not enough to constitute fraud on the court. The court concluded that Swisher presented no clear and convincing evidence that either Trendsettah or its attorneys were responsible for an intentional, material misrepresentation directly aimed at the district court. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal of Trendsettah’s breach of contract claims and remanded with instructions to reinstate the jury’s verdict on those claims.The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Swisher’s motion for relief from judgment premised on newly discovered evidence and fraud under Rule 60(b)(2) and (b)(3), concerning Trendsettah’s antitrust claims. The court held that the Rule 60(b) motion was timely under Rule 60(c)(1)’s one-year limitation period, which restarted because the prior appellate decision substantially altered the district court’s judgment. The court concluded that Swisher met the standard for relief from judgment because Trendsettah’s tax evasion was relevant to antitrust liability and damages. View "TRENDSETTAH USA, INC. V. SWISHER INTERNATIONAL, INC." on Justia Law

Plaintiff bought garments from Eddie Bauer Outlet Stores advertising sales of 40–70% off. The price tags of the garments included two numbers: a higher price, which the parties call a “reference” or “list price,” and a lower “sale” price. Plaintiff paid the “sale” price for the clothes. She alleges that she relied on the representation that she was getting the clothes on sale, but later discovered that the “list prices” were misleading because Eddie Bauer never sold the garments for the “list price” and that the Eddie Bauer Outlet Stores have perpetual sales of 40–70% off.The court concluded that the disposition of this appeal turns on a question of Oregon law: whether a consumer suffers an “ascertainable loss” under Or. Rev. Stat. Sec. 646.638(1) when the consumer purchased a product that the consumer would not have purchased at the price that the consumer paid but for a violation of Or. Rev. Stat. Secs. 646.608(1)(e), (i), (j), (ee), or (u), if the violation arises from a representation regarding the product’s price, comparative price, or price history, but not about the character or quality of the product itself. View "SUSAN CLARK V. EDDIE BAUER LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action against air conditioner manufacturer Carrier Corporation alleging that his air conditioner was defective, asserting state law claims and a federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA") claim. The court reasoned that although the MMWA is a federal statute, federal courts do not have jurisdiction over an MMWA claim if the amount in controversy is less than $50,000. At issue is whether attorneys’ fees count toward the MMWA’s amount in controversy requirement.The panel held that attorneys’ fees are not “costs” within the meaning of MMWA, and therefore they may be included in the amount in controversy if they are available to prevail plaintiffs pursuant to state fee-shifting statutes.The panel next considered whether Plaintiff could include attorneys’ fees toward the MMWA’s $50,000 jurisdictional threshold. Plaintiff’s MMWA claim was premised on Carrier’s alleged breach of express and implied warranties pursuant to Michigan law. Neither of these statutes grants a prevailing plaintiff attorneys’ fees. The court found that even if this claim was included in his lawsuit, the Act makes clear that attorneys’ fees are not available in a class action. Thus, because Plaintiff brought this claim as part of a putative class action, he is not entitled to attorneys’ fees under state law. View "NICHOLAS SHONER V. CARRIER CORPORATION" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to medical providers at Orange County Jail in 1983 claims alleging that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of Plaintiff, a detainee who died from a ruptured aortic dissection.The court stated to defeat qualified immunity, Plaintiff must show that a reasonable official would have understood that their actions presented an unconstitutional substantial risk of harm to Plaintiff. Defendant, the on-call physician at the time, could not have reasonably believed that he could provide constitutionally adequate care without even examining a patient with Plaintiff’s symptoms. Therefore, the district court was correct in denying summary judgment on qualified immunity to this Defendant.The court further held that the first nurse to see Plaintiff had access to facts from which an inference could be drawn that Plaintiff was at serious risk. The court held that the district court was correct in denying summary judgment on qualified immunity to Defendant.The court also held that the second nurse to see Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity. Reasoning that a jury could not reasonably conclude that this Defendant was deliberately indifferent. Finally, the court held that the third nurse to see Plaintiff was not entitled to qualified immunity because a reasonable person in Defendant’s position would have inferred that Plaintiff was at serious risk if not hospitalized. View "PATRICK RUSSELL V. JOCELYN LUMITAP" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in state court, alleging state law claims arising from SelectHealth’s administration of her deceased husband’s Medicare Advantage ("MA") plan and his death. SelectHealth removed the action to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.The court first considered whether Plaintiff’s claims must be exhausted through the Medicare Act’s administrative review scheme. The court concluded that Plaintiff’s claims were not subject to the SSA’s exhaustion requirement because the dispute was not whether Plaintiff’s husband received a favorable outcome from the internal benefits determination process but rather whether he should have received the services earlier.Next, the court held that Plaintiff’s claim that SelectHealth breached a duty to process her husband’s October 7, 2016 appeal was expressly preempted. The court reasoned that the Medicare Act preempted those claims, regardless of whether they would be inconsistent with federal regulations. The court also held that the Medicare Act also preempted Plaintiff’s claims based on SelectHealth’s alleged breach of duty to investigate properly her husband’s August 23, 2016 preauthorization request for consultation and testing at the Medical Center in Phoenix, Arizona.The court concluded that a state law claim based on a duty to process claims for benefit in a timely manner is preempted by the Part C regulations that set forth the timeframes for initial determinations and reconsideration decisions. The court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of SelectHealth because the Medicare Act’s express preemption provision barred her claims. View "NAOMI AYLWARD V. SELECTHEALTH, INC." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, alleged that a corrections officer unlawfully tampered with his mail. The plaintiff moved pro se to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), but the district court denied his motion upon finding he was barred under the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The district court rejected the plaintiff’s contention that he was under imminent danger of serious physical injury, an exception that allows prisoners to proceed IFP notwithstanding the three-strikes rule.At issues on appeal are (1) whether the district court properly attributed three strikes to the plaintiff; and (2) must an allegation of imminent danger relate to a prisoner’s underlying claim to get around the PLRA’s three-strikes rule?The Ninth Circuit held a prior lawsuit constitutes a strike when it “was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” The court found that the district court properly assessed three strikes based on the plaintiff's prior cases.Next, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that the plaintiff is not entitled IFP status regardless of whether a nexus exists, finding that Section 1915(g) contains a nexus requirement. The court affirmed the district court’s ruling because the plaintiff both accumulated three strikes and failed to establish a sufficient nexus. View "EDWARD RAY, JR. V. E. LARA" on Justia Law

After Defendant sold fentanyl to an undercover officer, federal agents executed a search warrant at his home, leading to the discovery of fentanyl, oxycodone and a loaded firearm. Defendant was indicted on conspiracy to distribute a substance containing fentanyl, possession with intent to deliver fentanyl, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking.At trial, Defendant contested only the conspiracy and firearms charges. As to the firearm offense, Defendant presented a witness who testified that he sold the gun to Defendant. The witness claimed that he was moving out of the state and did not have any place to store the gun. The witness also testified that the gun had nothing to do with any drug transaction. Defendant was convicted on all charges and sentenced to 120 months incarceration on the drug offenses and 60 months on the firearm offense.Defendant appealed, challenging the district court's supplemental instruction to the jury that allowed the jury to convict him by finding that the drug had a connection to the drug trafficking charges. The Ninth Circuit agreed, reversing Defendant's firearm conviction. Applying a plain error standard, the panel determined that the district court erred in instructing the jury "in furtherance of" meant that “there must be a connection between the firearm and the drug trafficking offense. The district court's definition failed to explain to the jury that it needed to find the firearm somehow facilitated the drug trafficking offenses to convict Defendant. View "USA V. RHETT IRONS" on Justia Law

Global Rescue Jets, which does business as Jet Rescue, billed Kaiser at Jet Rescue’s usual and customary rates. Kaiser paid only a fraction of the billed amount, however, because in its view Jet Rescue’s services were covered by Medicare and thus subject to payment at the much lower Medicare-approved rates. Jet Rescue brought this action against Kaiser to recover the additional sums Kaiser allegedly owes. Jet Rescue argues that it was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit and that the exhaustion requirement should have been excused in any eventThe circuit court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, reasoning original Medicare beneficiaries must exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of a claim for benefits. The panel also rejected Jet Rescue’s contention that the exhaustion requirement should be excused. The panel held that the exhaustion requirement may be excused if three conditions are satisfied: (1) the plaintiff’s claim is wholly collateral to a claim for Medicare benefits; (2) the plaintiff has made a colorable showing of irreparable harm; and (3) exhaustion would be futile. The panel concluded that Jet Rescue failed to meet the first and third requirements. Thus, the circuit court rejected both arguments and affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "GLOBAL RESCUE JETS, LLC V. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN" on Justia Law

The California State Water Resources Control Board signed a Management Agency Agreement (“MAA”) with the U.S. Forest Service to formally recognize it as the management agency on Forest Service lands to implement water management plans. The U.S. Forest Service issued grazing permits in three allotments-- the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek Allotments (the “BEH Allotments”). Plaintiffs alleged that the Forest Service’s allowance of livestock grazing in the BEH Allotments led to fecal matter runoff. The only claim at issue here alleged that the government violated Section 313 of the Clean Water Act by failing to comply with requirements of California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.The panel held that the plaintiffs had Article III standing under the associational standing doctrine because at least one member of each plaintiff organization averred that they regularly hike in all three Allotments. rest Service would instead implement the agreed-upon Best Management Practices (“BMP”s) and the provisions of the MAA. Second, plaintiffs asserted that the MAA was superseded by the State Board’s adoption of the 2004 “Policy for Implementation and Enforcement of the Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program” (“2004 NPS Policy”). The panel held that this argument was refuted by the text of that document. The panel concluded that plaintiffs failed to show that government violated the reporting and permitting requirements of the relevant Cal. Water Code. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment to defendants with respect to plaintiffs’ claims based on asserted violations of the basis plan’s water quality objectives. View "CENT. SIERRA ENVTL. RES. CTR. V. STANISLAUS NAT'L FOREST" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, three Arizona voters and three organizations, including the Democratic National Committee, brought this action against the Arizona Secretary of State alleging that the Ballot Order Statute violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it gives candidates the benefit of appearing first on the ballot, not on the basis of some politically neutral ordering (such as alphabetically or by lot), but on the basis of political affiliation.The district court dismissed the complaint on the basis that plaintiffs lack standing and that the complaint presented a nonjusticiable political question. The circuit court panel held that the district court erred in dismissing the suit on these grounds. The panel held that: (1) the DNC satisfied the injury in fact requirement on the basis of its competitive standing; (2) the challenged law was traceable to the Secretary; and (3) having shown that an injunction against the Secretary would significantly increase the likelihood of relief, plaintiffs met their burden as to redressability. The court reasoned that adjudicating a challenge to a ballot order statute did not present the sort of intractable issues that arise in partisan gerrymandering cases. Further, the court rejected the Secretary’s argument that the district court’s dismissal could be affirmed on the alternative ground that she was not the proper defendant under Article III or the Eleventh Amendment. Finally, the panel held that plaintiffs had stated a claim sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. View "BRIAN MECINAS V. KATIE HOBBS" on Justia Law