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

The case involves the Tohono O’odham Nation, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, Archaeology Southwest, and the Center for Biological Diversity (collectively, "Plaintiffs") who filed a lawsuit against the United States Department of the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Bureau of Land Management (collectively, "Department"). The Plaintiffs allege that the Department violated the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) by issuing two limited notices to proceed (LNTPs) for the construction of a transmission line by SunZia Transmission, LLC, before fulfilling its NHPA obligations. The Plaintiffs claim that the San Pedro Valley, through which the transmission line runs, is a historic property protected under the NHPA.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona allowed SunZia to intervene as a defendant. The district court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and subsequently granted the Department's and SunZia's motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The district court also denied the Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, deeming it futile. The Plaintiffs then appealed the district court's decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's order dismissing the action. The Ninth Circuit held that the LNTPs constituted final agency actions because they represented the Department's final decision that the requirements for a Programmatic Agreement (PA) had been satisfied, allowing SunZia to begin construction. The court found that the Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the Department violated the PA by failing to consult with the Plaintiffs on a historic property treatment plan that would evaluate whether the San Pedro Valley should be designated as a historic property. The court inferred that proper consultation would have likely resulted in the Valley being designated as such. Consequently, the Plaintiffs also plausibly alleged that the Department violated the PA by authorizing construction before properly identifying all historic properties affected by the project and ensuring that any adverse effects would be avoided, minimized, or mitigated. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR" on Justia Law

Carroll Shelby Licensing, Inc. and Carroll Hall Shelby Trust filed a lawsuit against Denice Halicki and her associated entities, alleging that Halicki's copyright claims over the "Eleanor" Ford Mustangs were invalid. Halicki counterclaimed, asserting that Shelby's "GT-500CR" Mustangs infringed her copyright in Eleanor, a collection of Mustangs featured in four films. The dispute also involved claims of breach of a prior settlement agreement between the parties.The United States District Court for the Central District of California held that Eleanor was not entitled to character copyright protection and dismissed Halicki’s breach of contract claim based on the settlement agreement. The court also denied Shelby’s request for a declaration that the GT-500CR did not infringe any of Halicki’s rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that Eleanor was not entitled to character copyright protection. The Ninth Circuit applied the Towle test and concluded that Eleanor did not have conceptual qualities, consistent traits, or distinctive elements necessary for character copyright protection. The court also affirmed the district court’s judgment that Shelby did not violate the settlement agreement, which prohibited Shelby from copying only Eleanor’s distinctive hood and inset lights.However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of declaratory relief and remanded the case for the purpose of issuing the appropriate declaration. The appellate court held that a declaration would clarify and settle the legal relations between Shelby and Halicki and provide Shelby relief from the uncertainty that led to the proceedings. View "CARROLL SHELBY LICENSING, INC. V. HALICKI" on Justia Law

Namir Malik Ali Greene committed a series of convenience store and gas station robberies during a three-week period in March and April 2023. He used a BB gun to intimidate store clerks and stole between $100 and $2,000 from each location. Greene also stole three cars, two by using the BB gun to intimidate the owners and one by stealing the keys. He was eventually arrested after a high-speed pursuit. Greene was charged with nine counts of interference with commerce by robbery and one count of carjacking.Greene pleaded guilty to one count of Hobbs Act robbery and stipulated to facts establishing seven additional Hobbs Act robberies and one car theft. The presentence report treated the car theft as a carjacking pseudo-count and calculated an adjusted offense level of 26 for that offense. The district court adopted the presentence report’s calculation, including the use of carjacking as the greater of the adjusted offense levels, and sentenced Greene to 120 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case for plain error because Greene did not object to the district court’s reliance on carjacking to calculate his offense level. The Ninth Circuit agreed with Greene that the district court erred by using the carjacking pseudo-count because the elements of federal carjacking were not specifically established by his plea agreement. The stipulated facts did not establish that Greene acted with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm, which is required for federal carjacking. The Ninth Circuit held that this error was plain and affected Greene’s substantial rights. The court exercised its discretion to correct the error and remanded the case for resentencing on an open record. View "USA V. GREENE" on Justia Law

Tyler Jay Watson was investigated by a police task force in Nampa, Idaho, for drug distribution based on information from a confidential informant. Watson, who was on parole, had his vehicle and residence searched by law enforcement and probation officers. Methamphetamine was found in his vehicle, and during a subsequent search of his residence, Watson was detained in a patrol car. After being read his Miranda rights, Watson admitted to having more drugs at his grandmother's home. Officers obtained consent to search the grandmother's garage, where they found fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cash.Watson was charged with possession with intent to distribute fentanyl. He filed a motion to suppress his incriminating statements and the evidence found, arguing that his parole conditions compelled him to cooperate with law enforcement under threat of parole revocation, violating his Fifth Amendment rights. The United States District Court for the District of Idaho denied the motion, finding the searches constitutional and Watson's statements not involuntarily compelled. Watson conditionally pled guilty and was sentenced to 188 months in prison.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Watson's statements were not involuntarily compelled because his parole conditions required cooperation only with his parole officer, not all law enforcement officers. Additionally, Watson was properly Mirandized before making the incriminating statements, and there was no indication that he was told refusal to cooperate would result in parole revocation. Thus, the court concluded that Watson was not subject to a penalty situation under these circumstances. View "USA V. WATSON" on Justia Law

PharmacyChecker.com LLC, an online pharmacy accreditation and price comparison service, sued its competitor LegitScript LLC for allegedly engaging in a group boycott in violation of antitrust laws. LegitScript moved for summary judgment, arguing that PharmacyChecker lacked antitrust standing because its business facilitated the illegal importation of foreign drugs, thus precluding any legally cognizable injury under Section 4 of the Clayton Act.The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon denied LegitScript's motion for summary judgment. The court found that PharmacyChecker's business was legal and that LegitScript had not shown that PharmacyChecker itself engaged in illegal activity. The court also noted that the facilitation of potentially illegal activities by some of PharmacyChecker's users did not bar its antitrust standing. LegitScript's motion to certify the order for interlocutory appeal was granted, and the case was brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that PharmacyChecker had antitrust standing under Section 4 of the Clayton Act. The court relied on Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedents, including Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp., Calnetics Corp. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., and Memorex Corp. v. IBM. These cases established that neither the equitable defense of in pari delicto nor unclean hands could bar a plaintiff from bringing an antitrust suit, even if the plaintiff's business involved some illegal conduct. The court concluded that PharmacyChecker's facilitation of potentially illegal drug importation by some users did not negate its standing to sue for antitrust violations. View "PHARMACYCHECKER.COM LLC V. LEGITSCRIPT LLC" on Justia Law

Debtors Jason Lee and Janice Chen filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, listing their residence as their sole collateral. They proposed a plan to bifurcate and "cram down" creditor Mission Hen, LLC's junior secured claim to its secured portion. Mission Hen objected on grounds of eligibility, feasibility, and legality under 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2). The bankruptcy court resolved all objections in favor of the debtors and confirmed the plan.The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision. The BAP held that the debtors were eligible for Chapter 13 bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 109(e), which sets a noncontingent, liquidated, unsecured debt limit. The bankruptcy court reasonably relied on its own valuation of the property in determining eligibility, given the timing and procedural setting of Mission Hen's objection. The BAP also found the Chapter 13 plan feasible under § 1325(a)(6), as a renter's declaration showed that a rent increase would cover the shortfall in the debtors' reported monthly income.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the BAP's decision. The court held that the debtors were eligible for Chapter 13 bankruptcy based on the bankruptcy court's valuation of the property. The court also found the plan feasible, as the increased rent payments would allow the debtors to make all payments under the plan. Additionally, the court held that the plan did not violate § 1322(b)(2) because § 1322(c)(2) creates an exception for short-term claims that mature during the term of a Chapter 13 plan. The court agreed with other circuits that § 1322(c)(2) allows for the modification of an entire claim, permitting the debtors to bifurcate Mission Hen's claim.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the BAP's decision, confirming the bankruptcy court's order. View "Mission Hen, LLC v. Lee" on Justia Law

Winston R. Anderson, a former Intel employee, brought a putative class action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against the trustees of Intel Corporation’s proprietary retirement funds. Anderson alleged that the trustees breached their fiduciary duty of prudence by investing in hedge funds and private equity funds, and their duty of loyalty by steering retirement funds to companies in which Intel Capital had already invested.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Anderson’s claims, concluding that he had not plausibly alleged a breach of either the duty of prudence or the duty of loyalty. The court found that Anderson failed to provide a meaningful benchmark to compare the performance of Intel’s funds and did not plausibly allege a real conflict of interest for the duty of loyalty claim. Anderson was granted leave to amend his complaint, but the district court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice for the same reasons.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The court held that Anderson did not state a claim for breach of ERISA’s duty of prudence because he failed to provide a sound basis for comparison, as the funds he compared to Intel’s funds had different aims, risks, and potential rewards. The court also held that Anderson did not state a claim for breach of the duty of loyalty because he did not plausibly allege a real conflict of interest, only the potential for one. The court emphasized that ERISA requires prudence based on the methods employed by fiduciaries, not the results achieved, and that generalized attacks on hedge funds and private equity funds as a category are insufficient to state a claim. View "Anderson v. Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee" on Justia Law

Luis Guillermo Gonzalez-Juarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States in 1999. After the government initiated removal proceedings against him, Gonzalez conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal. He argued that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his two sons, who planned to accompany him to Mexico. Gonzalez relied primarily on country conditions reports about crime and violence in Mexico, and also cited his sons' lack of fluency in Spanish, their separation from their older sister, and financial concerns.The Immigration Judge (IJ) granted Gonzalez's application for cancellation of removal, finding that he had demonstrated the requisite hardship. However, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reversed the IJ's decision, concluding that Gonzalez had not established that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. The BIA was not persuaded that the general conditions of crime and violence in Mexico, which would apply to any qualifying relative, met the hardship standard. The BIA also rejected the argument that Gonzalez and his sons would be targeted for criminal violence due to their perceived wealth.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA's decision. The court held that the substantial evidence standard of review applies to the hardship determination in cancellation of removal cases. The court found that substantial evidence supported the BIA's conclusions. The court noted that Gonzalez's other family members had lived in Mexico without harm and that a country conditions report that applies equally to a large proportion of removal cases does not compel the conclusion that the hardship standard is met. The court also rejected Gonzalez's argument that the BIA failed to consider the record evidence. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit denied Gonzalez's petition for review. View "GONZALEZ-JUAREZ V. BONDI" on Justia Law

A group of innocent bystanders was injured when a fleeing suspect lost control of his car and crashed into them during a high-speed police chase. The plaintiffs, including the estate of a deceased individual and several injured parties, alleged that the police officers conducted the chase with the intent to harm the suspect and failed to provide or summon emergency services after the crash.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the officers' motion for judgment on the pleadings based on qualified immunity. The officers appealed, arguing that they were entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiffs did not state a claim for a violation of their constitutional rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged a substantive due process claim by asserting that the officers conducted the high-speed chase with a purpose to harm the suspect, which exceeded any legitimate law enforcement purpose. The court also held that the law was clearly established that such conduct was unconstitutional, thus the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.Additionally, the court addressed the plaintiffs' state-created danger claim, holding that the officers' failure to summon or render emergency services after the crash, despite witnessing the injuries, constituted deliberate indifference to a known danger. The court concluded that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the officers' actions violated clearly established law, and therefore, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim either. The court emphasized that its decision was based on the unique facts of the case and did not preclude the possibility of qualified immunity being granted at a later stage. View "Estate of Soakai v. Abdelaziz" on Justia Law

Rodney Woodland, a freelance artist and model, sued Montero Lamar Hill, also known as Lil Nas X, for copyright infringement. Woodland claimed that Hill posted photos on his Instagram page that were too similar to photos Woodland had posted on his own Instagram account. Woodland's photos, posted between August 2018 and July 2021, received between eight and seventy-five "likes." Hill's allegedly infringing photos were posted between March and October 2021 and received hundreds of thousands to millions of "likes."The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed Woodland's claims, including copyright infringement, declaratory relief, accounting, and unjust enrichment. The court found that Woodland failed to allege facts showing a reasonable possibility that Hill viewed Woodland's photos on Instagram and that Hill's photos were not substantially similar to Woodland's. Woodland was granted leave to amend his complaint but ultimately failed to state a claim for copyright infringement.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that Woodland did not plausibly allege that Hill had "access" to Woodland's photos, as the mere fact that Woodland posted his photos on Instagram was insufficient to show that Hill had viewed them. Additionally, the court found that Woodland failed to show that Hill unlawfully appropriated his photos. The court explained that the Copyright Act protects only the "selection" and "arrangement" of individual elements in a photo, and the photos in question were not substantially similar in their selection and arrangement of elements. Thus, Woodland's copyright infringement claim was dismissed. View "Woodland v. Hill" on Justia Law