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

Derek Steven Trumbull pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was found with a Glock 17 loaded with a magazine containing seventeen rounds of nine-millimeter ammunition, and he also had two spare magazines. Trumbull had multiple prior felony convictions. He was indicted on federal charges and pled guilty without a plea agreement.The United States District Court for the District of Montana calculated Trumbull’s base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B), which includes an increase for offenses involving a semiautomatic firearm capable of accepting a large capacity magazine. The court applied Application Note 2 of the commentary to § 2K2.1, which defines a large capacity magazine as one that can accept more than fifteen rounds. Trumbull objected, arguing that Application Note 2 was an invalid interpretation under Kisor v. Wilkie. The district court overruled his objection and sentenced him to twenty-four months’ imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Application Note 2’s definition of “large capacity magazine” warrants deference under Kisor because the term is ambiguous, the interpretation is reasonable, and it meets the criteria for deference. The court found that the district court did not err in applying § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B) as interpreted by Application Note 2 to Trumbull’s base offense level. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. View "United States v. Trumbull" on Justia Law

The case involves the plaintiffs, including the estate of Carson Bride and three minors, who suffered severe harassment and bullying through the YOLO app, leading to emotional distress and, in Carson Bride's case, suicide. YOLO Technologies developed an anonymous messaging app that promised to unmask and ban users who engaged in bullying or harassment but allegedly failed to do so. The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against YOLO, claiming violations of state tort and product liability laws.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, holding that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunized YOLO from liability. The court found that the claims sought to hold YOLO responsible for third-party content posted on its app, which is protected under the CDA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' misrepresentation claims, holding that these claims were based on YOLO's promise to unmask and ban abusive users, not on a failure to moderate content. The court found that the misrepresentation claims were analogous to a breach of promise, which is not protected by Section 230. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' product liability claims, holding that Section 230 precludes liability because these claims attempted to hold YOLO responsible as a publisher of third-party content. The court concluded that the product liability claims were essentially about the failure to moderate content, which is protected under the CDA. View "Estate of Bride v. Yolo Technologies, Inc." on Justia Law

In February 2016, two Seattle police officers, Scott Miller and Michael Spaulding, fatally shot Che Andre Taylor during an attempted arrest. Kshama Sawant, a Seattle City Council member, publicly referred to the incident as a "blatant murder" and later reiterated that Taylor was "murdered by the police." Following an inquest, prosecutors declined to file charges against the officers due to insufficient evidence of malice. Miller and Spaulding subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging defamation and outrage under state law, as well as a federal defamation claim against Sawant.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the federal defamation claim but retained jurisdiction over the state law claims. The court later granted Sawant's motion for summary judgment on the state law claims and awarded her expert witness deposition expenses, including fees for preparation time. Miller and Spaulding appealed the decision, challenging the award of expert witness fees and the admissibility of the expert's opinions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 allows for the recovery of reasonable expenses for time an expert witness spends preparing for a deposition. The court joined other circuits in concluding that such preparation fees are recoverable under Rule 26. The court found that the expert witness deposition preparation fees awarded to Sawant were reasonable and did not result in manifest injustice. The Ninth Circuit also noted that objections to the admissibility of the expert's opinions did not negate the obligation to pay a reasonable fee under Rule 26. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and the award of expert witness deposition expenses. View "Miller v. Sawant" on Justia Law

Michael Mayes filed a complaint against American Hallmark Insurance Company in state court. American Hallmark received a copy of the complaint and removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction before being formally served. Mayes moved to remand the case, arguing that removal was improper because American Hallmark had not yet been formally served.A magistrate judge concluded that 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) does not require formal service before removal and recommended denying the motion to remand. The United States District Court for the District of Oregon reviewed the issue de novo and agreed with the magistrate judge’s interpretation, denying Mayes’ motion to remand.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit held that under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), a defendant may remove a state-court civil action once it receives a copy of the complaint, without waiting for formal service. The court clarified that the statute sets a deadline for removal but does not establish a "window" that prohibits removal before formal service. The court also noted that the statutory context and precedent from other circuit courts support this interpretation. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Mayes' motion to remand. View "Mayes v. American Hallmark Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The plaintiff, Jose Emilio Ronderos, applied for a job with USF Reddaway, Inc. and Yellow Corporation (collectively, "Reddaway") and was required to sign an arbitration agreement as part of the application process. Ronderos later filed employment-related claims against Reddaway, alleging age and disability discrimination, retaliation, and other violations under California law. Ronderos claimed that the arbitration agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.The United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Reddaway's motion to compel arbitration. The court found that the arbitration agreement was procedurally unconscionable because it was a contract of adhesion presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, involved significant oppression, and contained a substantively opaque cost-splitting provision. The court also found that the agreement was substantively unconscionable due to its one-sided filing provision and preliminary injunction carve-out, which unfairly favored Reddaway. The district court declined to sever the unconscionable provisions and enforce the remainder of the agreement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable. It held that the agreement involved significant oppression and some surprise, making it procedurally unconscionable. The court also found that the one-sided filing provision and preliminary injunction carve-out were substantively unconscionable. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to sever the unconscionable provisions and affirmed the denial of Reddaway's motion to compel arbitration. View "Ronderos v. USF Reddaway, Inc." on Justia Law

Timberly Hughes, a U.S. citizen, failed to report her foreign bank accounts for the years 2010 through 2013, as required under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. Hughes owned two companies in New Zealand and had financial interests in their accounts. The United States assessed penalties against her for willful failure to file the required Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBARs) for 2012 and 2013, totaling $678,899. Hughes did not pay, leading the United States to file suit in federal court.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held a bench trial and found that Hughes willfully failed to file FBARs for 2012 and 2013 but not for 2010 and 2011. The court concluded that "willfulness" for civil FBAR penalties could be shown through recklessness or willful blindness, following the Supreme Court's reasoning in Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr. The court entered a final judgment against Hughes for $238,125.19 in substantive penalties but denied the United States' request for prejudgment interest and late payment penalties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit agreed that "willfulness" for civil FBAR penalties includes both knowing and reckless violations, aligning with the reasoning in Safeco and the consensus of other circuits. The court found that Hughes's failure to file was willful for 2012 and 2013, as she had acknowledged the requirement on her tax returns but failed to comply. The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's judgment and rejected Hughes's argument that subjective intent was necessary to establish willfulness. View "USA V. HUGHES" on Justia Law

An attorney, Jeffrey Cogan, filed a federal lawsuit challenging an Arizona state court judgment against him for malicious prosecution. The state court judgment arose from Cogan's actions during a federal bankruptcy proceeding involving Arnaldo Trabucco. Cogan sought a declaration that the state court lacked jurisdiction over the malicious prosecution claim because it involved conduct exclusively within federal jurisdiction.The Arizona state court had granted partial summary judgment against Cogan, finding him liable for malicious prosecution and awarding $8 million in damages. Cogan appealed, and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the liability finding but vacated the damages award, remanding for a new trial on damages. Cogan then filed the federal lawsuit before the retrial, arguing that the state court lacked jurisdiction. The district court dismissed Cogan's federal complaint under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars federal courts from reviewing state court judgments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply because the malicious prosecution claim was completely preempted by federal law, falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. The court reasoned that state courts lack jurisdiction over malicious prosecution claims arising from federal bankruptcy proceedings, as established in MSR Exploration, Ltd. v. Meridian Oil, Inc. Therefore, the state court judgment was subject to collateral attack in federal court.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Cogan's challenge to the state court judgment to proceed in federal court. View "COGAN V. TRABUCCO" on Justia Law

In early 2018, the DEA began investigating drug smuggling at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and received a tip implicating Lemack Bellot. Using a confidential source (CS), the DEA conducted a series of recorded meetings and phone calls with Bellot, who indicated he had previously smuggled drugs through the airport. Bellot and the CS agreed on plans to smuggle cocaine through SFO on two occasions, with the CS using fake cocaine provided by the DEA. Bellot advised the CS on how to package the drugs and introduced an associate to assist. The CS successfully smuggled the fake cocaine through airport security both times, paying Bellot fees for his assistance.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California charged Bellot with two counts of attempting to aid and abet possession with intent to distribute cocaine. Bellot was convicted by a jury on both counts. He then moved for a new trial, arguing that the jury instructions and the evidence presented at trial constructively amended the indictment, effectively convicting him of a different crime than the one for which he was indicted. The district court denied his motion, and Bellot appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed Bellot’s conviction. The court held that the indictment was not constructively amended. It explained that whether Bellot was charged with aiding and abetting an attempt to possess cocaine or attempting to aid and abet possession of cocaine, the crime charged remained the same: knowingly attempting to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. The court also found that the government’s statements during closing arguments did not alter its theory of the case or constructively amend the indictment. The court concluded that Bellot had sufficient notice of the charges against him and that the jury instructions were appropriate. The conviction was affirmed. View "USA V. BELLOT" on Justia Law

A group of Google Chrome users who chose not to sync their browsers with their Google accounts alleged that Google collected their personal data without consent. They believed that, based on Google's Chrome Privacy Notice, their data would not be collected if they did not enable sync. The users filed a class action lawsuit against Google, claiming violations of various state and federal laws.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Google. The court found that the data collection was "browser-agnostic," meaning it occurred regardless of the browser used. It concluded that Google's general privacy policies, which the users had consented to, governed the data collection. The court held that a reasonable person would understand from these policies that Google collected data when users interacted with Google services or third-party sites using Google services.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court should have determined whether a reasonable user would understand Google's various privacy disclosures as consenting to the data collection. The court found that the district court erred by focusing on the technical distinction of "browser agnosticism" rather than the reasonable person standard. The appellate court noted that Google's Chrome Privacy Notice could lead a reasonable user to believe that their data would not be collected without enabling sync. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings to determine whether the users consented to Google's data collection practices. View "CALHOUN V. GOOGLE LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves current and former San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) employees who sued the United States, alleging that the Navy misled the City of San Francisco and the SFPD about the safety of a contaminated former Naval shipyard leased by the City for use as a facility for SFPD employees. The plaintiffs claimed that the Navy's misrepresentations about the safety of the site caused them to be exposed to hazardous substances, resulting in health problems.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, indicating that the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) misrepresentation exception likely barred their claims. The plaintiffs then filed a Second Amended Complaint, which the district court also dismissed, concluding that the misrepresentation exception applied because the plaintiffs' claims were fundamentally based on the Navy's alleged misrepresentations.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the FTCA’s misrepresentation exception applied because the plaintiffs' claims arose out of the Navy’s alleged misrepresentations, even if the misrepresentations were made to the City and the SFPD rather than directly to the plaintiffs. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) implicitly limited or suspended the misrepresentation exception, finding no indication that Congress intended CERCLA to override the FTCA’s misrepresentation exception. The court concluded that the claims were barred by the FTCA’s misrepresentation exception and affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "ABBEY V. USA" on Justia Law