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

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order vacating the jury's damages award for copyright infringement and granting judgment as a matter of law to Katy Perry and other defendants. Plaintiffs, Christian hip-hop artists, filed suit alleging that a repeating instrumental figure in one of Katy Perry's songs copied a similar ostinato in one of plaintiffs' songs.The panel held that copyright law protects musical works only to the extent that they are original works of authorship. In this case, the trial record compels the panel to conclude that the ostinatos at issue consist entirely of commonplace musical elements, and that the similarities between them do not arise out of an original combination of these elements. Therefore, the jury's verdict finding defendants liable for copyright infringement was unsupported by the evidence. View "Gray v. Hudson" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the tax court's decision dismissing for lack of jurisdiction petitions for redetermination of federal income tax deficiencies for a partnership. Appellants argue that their petition was timely because I.R.C. 6223(f) barred the Commissioner from issuing more than one notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment (FPAA) pertaining to a partnership's taxable year, and the FPAA issued by the Commissioner on March 6, 2018 was the only valid FPAA.The panel concluded that the FPAA issued on November 1, 2017, was the only valid FPAA, and therefore appellants' petition was untimely. Because the Commissioner sent the November 1, 2017 FPAAs addressed to SNJ's TMP to the address given by appellants, the tax court properly held that the November 2017 FPAAs were not invalid by reason of being improperly addressed. The panel stated that there is no evidence that any other information that the Commissioner had or should have had according to appellants was furnished to the Commissioner according to the applicable regulations. Even though the Commissioner may have had access to the other address information presented by appellants, the Commissioner was not required to use it. Because the August 1, 2017 letter is not a notification of the beginning of an administrative proceeding, the November 1, 2017 FPAAs did not violate I.R.C. 6223(d)(1). Furthermore, the FPAAs issued on November 1, 2017 were valid and the 2018 FPAAs were invalid. Because June 7, 2018 is more than 150 days after November 1, 2017, the tax court properly dismissed appellants' petition. Finally, the panel concluded that the filing deadline in I.R.C. 6226 is jurisdictional and, because the filing deadline is jurisdictional, equitable tolling is unavailable. View "SNJ Limited v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief in a putative class action brought by plaintiffs, two teenage transgender individuals who were born female, alleging that a provision of Arizona law, Arizona Administrative Code R9-22-205(B)(4), that precludes coverage for gender reassignment surgeries violates federal law and is unconstitutional. The panel agreed with the district court that plaintiffs sought a mandatory injunction and noted that the standard for issuing a mandatory injunction is high. Based on the preliminary record, the panel concluded that the given facts specific to remaining plaintiff Doe and the irreversible nature of the surgery, Doe had not shown that the district court's findings were illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that could be drawn from the facts in the record. In this case, defendants had proffered competing expert testimony challenging plaintiffs' assertion that top surgery was for them medically necessary, safe and effective; Doe sought preliminary injunctive relief when he was a minor, which raised concerns as to whether he sufficiently appreciated the consequences of irreversible surgery; and Doe had serious psychiatric issues distinct from, or related to, his gender dysphoria and his expert psychiatrist had not opined as to whether Doe himself was a suitable candidate for surgery and had not met or examined Doe.The panel noted two additional points because there was ongoing litigation in the district court as to the constitutional and statutory challenges. In regard to Doe's claim under the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, the panel noted that this court had already held in Karnoski v. Trump, 926 F.3d 1180 (9th Cir. 2019), that the level of scrutiny applicable to discrimination based on transgender status was more than rational basis but less than strict scrutiny. Furthermore, the district court's conclusion that the exclusion was not discriminatory as a threshold matter was based on an erroneous reading that Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020), was limited to Title VII discrimination claims involving employment. View "Doe v. Snyder" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied in part and granted in part a petition for review of the BIA's decision determining that petitioner's criminal convictions rendered him removable and ineligible for cancellation of removal. The panel concluded that the BIA correctly determined that petitioner's conviction for domestic violence, in violation of California Penal Code 273.5(a), rendered him removable, but remanded for the BIA to consider whether his rape conviction for felony rape of an unconscious person, in violation of California Penal Code 261(a)(4), is an aggravated felony barring cancellation of removal. On remand, the BIA must consider whether the generic federal definition of rape includes intercourse involving consent obtained through fraud. View "Valdez Amador v. Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Nevada law against individual law enforcement officers and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Plaintiffs' claims stemmed from their arrest for chalking anti-police messages on sidewalks. On appeal, plaintiffs challenge the district court's grant of qualified immunity to Detective Tucker.The panel affirmed the district court's holding that a reasonable factfinder could conclude from the evidence that Detective Tucker violated plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. The panel reversed the district court's holding that Detective Tucker is entitled to qualified immunity because it was clearly established at the time of plaintiffs' arrests that an arrest supported by probable cause but made in retaliation for protected speech violates the First Amendment. The panel stated that plaintiffs have shown differential treatment of similarly situated individuals, satisfying the Nieves exception. In this case, the district court correctly concluded that a reasonable jury could find that the anti-police content of plaintiffs' chalkings was a substantial or motivating factor for Detective Tucker's declarations of arrest. Therefore, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Detective Tucker violated plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. Furthermore, a reasonable officer in Detective Tucker's position had fair notice that the First Amendment prohibited arresting plaintiffs for the content of their speech, notwithstanding probable cause. View "Ballentine v. Tucker" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of debtor's motion for leave to appeal the bankruptcy court's order denying without prejudice a creditor's request for relief from the automatic stay. In Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 140 S. Ct. 582 (2020), the Supreme Court addressed the finality of a bankruptcy court order denying a creditor's request for relief from the automatic stay. The panel concluded that, under the circumstances presented here and the considerations set forth in Ritzen and court precedent, the bankruptcy court's order was final and appealable because the bankruptcy court's denial of the creditor's motion conclusively resolved the request for stay relief. View "Harrington v. Mayer" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants, alleging unfair competition in violation of section 43 of the Lanham Act. A jury found that defendants engaged in materially false or misleading advertising about their competing whale-watching-cruise business in violation of the Lanham Act, but awarded $0 in actual damages and declined to award an equitable remedy of disgorgement of profits. The district court then issued a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from engaging in specified future acts of false advertising, denied plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees, and entered judgment.The Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment to the extent that it denies an award of profits and remanded for a new trial on that issue. The panel concluded that, under Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1492 (2020), the district court erred in instructing the jury on the element of willfulness. Instead, defendant's mental state is a highly important consideration in determining whether an award of profits is appropriate. The panel declined plaintiffs' request to remand the case with specific instructions to conduct a new jury trial, declining to apply judicial estoppel to either side and holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(c) does not require that the retrial on remand be a jury trial. The panel also vacated the district court's attorneys' fee determination because retrial of the disgorgement issue could affect the assessment of some of the relevant circumstances. View "Harbor Breeze Corp. v. Newport Landing Sportfishing, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an action alleging an antitrust conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act by three of the largest manufacturers of dynamic random access memory (DRAM). Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to coordinate their actions when they contemporaneously reduced their DRAM production in 2016, basing their theory on defendants' parallel business conduct and various "plus factor" allegations that they claim further suggest a preceding agreement. The panel concluded that plaintiffs' allegations do not amount to the "something more" required by the panel's precedent to make their claims plausible. In this case, while both parties' explanations for defendants' actions are conceivable, plaintiffs failed to allege additional facts that push their theory over "the line between possibility and plausibility." View "Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Service in an action challenging the Service's "barred owl removal experiment," which was designed to protect the northern spotted owl, a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The panel held that this experiment will produce a "net conservation benefit" under the plain language of the ESA’s implementing regulations because it allows the agency to obtain critical information to craft a policy to protect threatened or endangered species. The panel also held that the Service did not have to conduct a supplemental environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because it had adequately contemplated this experiment in its earlier analysis. Accordingly, the Service complied with both the ESA and NEPA in issuing the permits and safe harbor agreements. View "Friends of Animals v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition where the district concluded that the petition was timely but denied petitioner's claim on the merits. Relying on Trigueros v. Adams, 658 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2011), petitioner argues that the California Court of Appeal's silence on timeliness triggers an exception to the general "look through" rule under which the California Court of Appeal's one-line denial of his petition would presumptively be considered a tacit affirmation of the superior court's finding of untimeliness.The panel declined to extend Trigueros to new contexts, concluding that there are at least two materially important distinctions between this case and Trigueros. First, Trigueros centers around a ruling from the California Supreme Court, while the case at hand centers around a ruling from the California Court of Appeal. Second, the California Supreme Court in Trigueros ordered "an informal response on the merits," Trigueros, while the California Court of Appeal here merely requested a general "opposition to the petition." Therefore, the panel declined to apply Trigueros in this context and concluded that the government's failure to present certain additional arguments does not prevent it from addressing these matters in this appeal. View "Flemming v. Matteson" on Justia Law