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

In 2006, a California death row inmate sued, arguing that California’s execution protocol violated the Eighth Amendment. The district court stayed the execution. After the state promulgated a new execution protocol, the District Attorneys of three counties unsuccessfully sought to intervene. While the District Attorneys’ appeal was pending, Governor Newsom withdrew California’s execution protocol and placed a moratorium on executions. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their suit subject to conditions.The Ninth Circuit first held that this appeal was not mooted by Governor Newsom’s Order or by the stipulated dismissal. Nothing prevented Governor Newsom, or a future Governor, from withdrawing the Order and proceeding with preparations for executions. The suit could be revived upon the occurrence of any of three events specified in the Stipulation.The district court properly denied intervention as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) because the District Attorneys had not shown a significant protectable interest in the litigation. California law does not authorize them to defend constitutional challenges to execution protocols. The litigation concerned only the method by which the state may perform executions. The District Attorneys have neither the authority to choose a method of execution nor to represent the state entity that makes that choice. The district court properly denied permissive intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b): there was no common question of law or fact between the District Attorneys’ claim or defense and the main action; intervention would delay the already long-drawn-out litigation. View "Cooper v. Newsom" on Justia Law

Alcaraz was born in Mexico in 1979 and entered the U.S. illegally when he was eight years old. In 1999, Alcaraz, who lacked legal immigration status, was involved in a domestic incident with his girlfriend, which led to a nolo contendere California felony conviction. He was removed, re-entered illegally in 2003, was deported again, and was caught attempting to re-enter in 2013.In 2018, the Ninth Circuit granted Alcaraz’s petition for review from a BIA order denying his applications for withholding of removal and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The court concluded that the BIA erred in not requiring the DHS to make a good-faith effort to make available key government witnesses for Alcaraz’s cross-examination and in not deeming true Alcaraz’s testimony before the Immigration Judge, absent an express adverse credibility determination from the IJ. The Supreme Court reversed that judgment upon the second basis for granting the petition. On remand, the Ninth Circuit again granted Alcaraz’s petition for review in part, citing the BIA’s failure to require the DHS to make a good faith effort to present the author of the probation report or the declarant for Alcaraz’s cross-examination and the prejudice generated therefrom. The court remanded for a hearing that comports with the requirements of 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(4)(B), expressing no opinion on whether Alcaraz is entitled to withholding of removal. View "Alcaraz-Enriquez v. Garland" on Justia Law

After plaintiff and Thunder Studios filed suit against defendants in federal district court, the jury found that defendants committed the tort of stalking under California Civil Code 1708.7. In this case, defendants hired protestors, organized leafletting, hired a van to drive around Los Angeles with a message on its side, and published emails online to make the public aware of their views of plaintiff’s business practices.The Ninth Circuit held that defendants' speech and speech-related conduct was protected under the First Amendment and was therefore excluded from section 1708.7. The panel explained that the First Amendment applied to the speech and speech-related conduct of defendants, who were outside the United States at all relevant times, because their speech and speech-related conduct were directed at and received by California residents. The panel need not, and did not, here consider under what other circumstances a noncitizen living abroad has standing to claim the protections of the First Amendment. The panel also held that none of defendants' conduct constituted a "true threat" outside the protection of the First Amendment. Therefore, because defendants' conduct in California was constitutionally protected under section 1708.7(b)(1), there is no "pattern of conduct" that can support a judgment based on a violation of the California statute. Accordingly, the panel reversed and remanded with instructions. View "Thunder Studios, Inc. v. Kazal" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction of an action brought under the Quiet Title Act (QTA) against the United States, seeking to confirm that an easement granted to plaintiffs' predecessors-in-interest did not permit public use of the Robbins Gulch Road, and to enforce the government's obligations to patrol and maintain the road against unrestricted public use.The panel reaffirmed that the QTA's statute of limitations is jurisdictional and dispositive in this case. The panel explained that prior Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent are still controlling, even though for other statutes the Supreme Court has more recently set forth a seemingly different framework for assessing whether a statute of limitations is jurisdictional. Furthermore, the jurisdictional question and the merits question are not so intertwined that dismissal was improper because the determination of jurisdiction is not dependent on the merits of plaintiffs' claims. Finally, the panel rejected plaintiffs' remaining contentions, which are addressed in a separate memorandum disposition filed simultaneously with this opinion. View "Wilkins v. United States" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a habeas corpus petition challenging petitioner's jury conviction for two counts of first-degree murder and his capital sentence. The panel applied the deferential standard of review in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and held that the district court properly denied petitioner's claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in not renewing a motion to change venue based on pretrial publicity and in failing to develop additional mitigating evidence. Furthermore, petitioner did not show that the California Supreme Court's denial of his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to renew the change of venue motion after jury selection was an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington.The panel granted petitioner's request to expand the certificate of appealability to include his claim that counsel acted ineffectively in not seeking a further continuance to develop additional mitigating evidence for the penalty phase. However, the panel concluded that petitioner has not shown he is entitled to relief under Strickland for counsel's investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence at the penalty phase or for counsel's related determination not to seek a further continuance. Furthermore, even assuming that counsel's performance was constitutionally defective, petitioner cannot show prejudice under AEDPA's deferential standard of review. View "Bolin v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment following a jury trial in an action brought by plaintiff, a California state prisoner, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against a prison doctor and nurse, alleging claims of deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff's claims stemmed from defendants' termination of his prescription for morphine pills without tapering, despite the risk of withdrawal.The panel concluded that the district court's deference instruction, which instructed the jury to defer to defendants' asserted security justification, violated established law under the facts presented and was not harmless. In this case, plaintiff introduced substantial evidence that the prison did not act pursuant to a security-based policy and that the prison had several less drastic alternatives available, including Direct Observation Therapy. Accordingly, the panel remanded for a new trial. View "Coston v. Nangalama" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's denial of a petition for return of petitioner's child to France under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The panel concluded that the district court made three legal errors: 1) assuming petitioner cut off financial support for the child, the district court erred as a matter of law in determining that was sufficient to establish that he clearly and unequivocally abandoned the child, the showing required for deeming a parent not to be exercising custody rights; 2) the district court further erred in declining to return the child to France based on a "grave risk" defense, without first considering whether there are alternative remedies available to protect the child and permit her return to France for the period of time necessary for French courts to make the custody determination; and 3) the district court also erred in relying in part on the pandemic to deny the petition because the record did not include any evidence addressing what specific pandemic related risk returning the child to France would present. View "Jones v. Fairfield" on Justia Law

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law California Assembly Bill 51, which was enacted with the purpose of ensuring that individuals are not retaliated against for refusing to consent to the waiver of rights and procedures established in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Labor Code and to ensure that any contract relating to those rights and procedures be entered into as a matter of voluntary consent, not coercion.The Ninth Circuit reversed in part the district court's conclusion that AB 51 is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The panel held that California Labor Code 432.6 neither conflicts with the language of section 2 of the FAA nor creates a contract defense by which executed arbitration agreements may be invalidated or not enforced. Furthermore, section 432.6 does not make invalid or unenforceable any agreement to arbitrate, even if such agreement is consummated in violation of the statute; section 432.6 applied only in the absence of an agreement to arbitrate and expressly provided for the validity and enforceability of agreements to arbitrate; and because the district court erred in concluding that section 432.6(a)–(c) were preempted by the FAA, it necessarily abused its discretion in granting plaintiffs a preliminary injunction.However, the panel agreed that the civil and criminal penalties associated with AB 51 stood as an obstacle to the purposes of the FAA and were therefore preempted. The panel held that Government Code 12953 and Labor Code 433 are preempted to the extent that they apply to executed arbitration agreements covered by the FAA. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district court's determination that the civil and criminal penalties associated with AB 51 were preempted; vacated the district court's preliminary injunction enjoining AB 51's enforcement; and remanded for further proceedings. View "Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Bonta" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and six other retired executives sued NetApp and the Plan, alleging that terminating the Plan violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) because they had been promised lifetime benefits. The complaint alleged two distinct ERISA claims: (1) a direct claim for benefits under 29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(1)(B); and (2) an alternate claim for equitable relief under section 1132(a)(3) to redress NetApp's alleged misrepresentations that the Plan would provide lifetime benefits. After the district court granted summary judgment in favor of NetApp, only plaintiff appealed.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment as to plaintiff's section 1132(a)(1)(B) claim, rejecting plaintiff's contention that NetApp's promises in the PowerPoints created an ERISA plan with lifetime benefits. Furthermore, by deliberately choosing to stand on his flawed argument that the PowerPoints created a vested ERISA plan without there being any written instrument, and by declining to argue in the alternative that he could prevail even if section 1102(b) applied, plaintiff has affirmatively waived any argument under the proper legal standard that the PowerPoints were written instruments. The panel explained that that waiver conclusively defeats his section 1132(a)(1)(B) claim because, under Cinelli v. Sec. Pac. Corp., 61 F.3d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir. 1995), he bears the burden to prove that a specific written instrument vested lifetime benefits.The panel vacated the judgment as to plaintiff's section 1132(a)(3) claim, disagreeing with the district court's conclusion that no reasonable factfinder could find that NetApp committed a remediable wrong. Rather, the panel concluded that plaintiff's fiduciary duty claim survives summary judgment on the remediable wrong issue, because there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether NetApp incorrectly represented to Plan participants that the Plan provided lifetime health insurance benefits. Accordingly, the panel remanded the issue for further proceedings. View "Warmenhoven v. NetApp, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's orders holding the Company and the Law Firm in contempt for failure to comply with grand jury subpoenas related to a criminal investigation, in a case in which the district court ruled that certain dual-purpose communications were not privileged because the "primary purpose" of the documents was to obtain tax advice, not legal advice. The panel concluded that the primary-purpose test governs in assessing attorney-client privilege for dual-purpose communications.The panel stated that district courts in its circuit have applied both the "primary purpose" and "because of" tests for attorney-client privilege claims for dual-purpose communications; the primary-purpose test applies to dual-purpose communications in the attorney-client privilege context; and the panel left open whether "a primary purpose test" should apply rather than "the primary purpose" test. The panel addressed remaining issues in a concurrently filed, sealed memorandum disposition. View "In re Grand Jury" on Justia Law