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

Two individuals who are heirs to the author of a 1983 magazine article about the United States Navy Fighter Weapons School, known as “Top Gun,” brought suit against a film studio. They alleged that a 2022 film, which is a sequel to an earlier movie inspired by the article, unlawfully copied their copyrighted work and breached a contractual obligation to credit the original author.After the 1983 article was published, the author assigned all rights to the studio in exchange for compensation and a promise that he would be credited in any movie “substantially based upon or adapted from” the article. The studio produced an initial film in 1986, which acknowledged the article. Decades later, the heirs terminated the copyright grant under 17 U.S.C. § 203(a)(3)—a statutory right for authors’ heirs. The studio released the sequel without crediting or compensating the heirs. The heirs filed claims for copyright infringement and breach of contract in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The district court granted summary judgment for the studio, finding that the new film did not share substantial amounts of the article’s original expression and excluded the plaintiffs’ expert’s opinion for failing to filter out unprotectable elements.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that the sequel did not share substantial similarity in protectable expression with the article, as required for copyright infringement. It also found no original and protectable selection and arrangement of elements, and concluded that the district court properly excluded the plaintiffs’ expert and admitted the studio’s expert. The court further held that the studio did not breach the 1983 agreement, because the new film was not produced under the rights conferred by that agreement. The judgment for the studio was affirmed. View "YONAY V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION" on Justia Law

A former assistant principal at a middle school in the Central Valley School District posted a Facebook comment about the Democratic National Convention that included epithets, slurs, and violent language. The post, though made on his private account and shared with Facebook friends, was seen by other school district employees and quickly forwarded to administrators. Within days, the assistant principal was placed on paid administrative leave, prohibited from contacting district staff or students, and ultimately transferred to a non-administrative teaching position. The school district’s investigation revealed additional concerns about derogatory comments he had made at work. The district offered him a voluntary transfer if he signed a release of claims, which he rejected, leading to further administrative proceedings and the final transfer decision.Previously, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington reviewed the case. The court initially denied summary judgment to individual administrators on qualified immunity, a decision affirmed by the Ninth Circuit on interlocutory appeal. After further discovery and cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment to the school district and the individual administrators. The court found the plaintiff had established a prima facie First Amendment retaliation claim but held that the district’s interests outweighed the plaintiff’s under the Pickering balancing test. Qualified immunity was also found to apply to the individual defendants.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. It held that while the plaintiff’s Facebook post was private speech on a matter of public concern and he made a prima facie case for retaliation, the school district showed a reasonable prediction of disruption and its interest in maintaining a safe and inclusive environment outweighed the plaintiff’s First Amendment interests. The court also affirmed qualified immunity for the individual administrators. View "Thompson v. Central Valley School District No 365" on Justia Law

Joneca Company, LLC, and InSinkErator, LLC, are direct competitors in the garbage disposal market. InSinkErator alleged that Joneca marketed its disposals using horsepower designations that misrepresented the actual output power of the motors, thereby misleading consumers. InSinkErator claimed that industry and consumer standards understood horsepower to refer to the motor’s mechanical output, not merely the electrical input, and that Joneca’s advertising was causing it to lose sales and goodwill. InSinkErator tested Joneca’s products and found the output horsepower to be substantially less than advertised, prompting it to seek injunctive relief.The United States District Court for the Central District of California reviewed these allegations in the context of a motion for a preliminary injunction. After considering expert declarations and industry standards, the district court found that Joneca’s horsepower claims were literally false by necessary implication, as consumers would interpret horsepower designations as referring to output. The court also found that these claims were material to consumer purchasing decisions and that InSinkErator was likely to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction. As a result, the court ordered Joneca to place disclaimers on its packaging and sales materials and required InSinkErator to post a $500,000 bond. Joneca appealed, challenging the district court’s findings on falsity, materiality, irreparable harm, balancing of hardships, and public interest.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction. The court held that the district court did not err in finding that InSinkErator was likely to succeed on the merits of its Lanham Act false advertising claim, that Joneca’s horsepower claims were materially misleading, and that InSinkErator faced irreparable harm. The Ninth Circuit found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s balancing of equities, bond requirement, or determination that the injunction served the public interest. View "INSINKERATOR, LLC V. JONECA COMPANY, LLC" on Justia Law

Amazon was accused of unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act for refusing to recognize and bargain with the Teamsters Amazon National Negotiating Committee, which represented a group of former Amazon delivery drivers. After Amazon terminated its contract with a delivery service whose drivers were represented by the union, the Teamsters alleged that Amazon and the contractor were joint employers and demanded bargaining rights. Amazon declined, prompting the Teamsters to file unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB’s General Counsel filed a complaint against Amazon, alleging threats, retaliation, and refusal to bargain.Following the initiation of the NLRB administrative proceedings, Amazon sued in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, seeking to enjoin the Board from continuing those proceedings. Amazon argued that the Board’s structure and adjudicative procedures were unconstitutional and requested a preliminary injunction. The Teamsters intervened in the case to represent the interests of the drivers. The district court denied Amazon’s motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction under the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which prohibits federal courts from issuing injunctions in cases involving or growing out of labor disputes.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed whether Amazon’s constitutional challenge “involved or grew out of” a labor dispute, as defined by the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The Ninth Circuit held that both the parties and the underlying dispute satisfied the requirements of the Act, as Amazon’s claims were directly connected to a labor dispute between an employer and a union. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction, concluding that federal courts lack jurisdiction to issue such relief in this context. View "AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC V. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" on Justia Law

A group of 169 individuals who worked at the Clark County Government Center in Las Vegas brought claims alleging that they suffered serious injuries due to exposure to toxic chemicals, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), at their workplace. The site of the Government Center had previously been used as a rail yard by Union Pacific Railroad, and plaintiffs alleged that Union Pacific dumped waste, including PCBs manufactured by the former Monsanto Company, at the site. Plaintiffs asserted that Monsanto’s corporate successors inherited liability for harms caused by the production, sale, and distribution of PCBs, which allegedly caused a range of health issues for those exposed.The plaintiffs initially filed suit in Nevada state court against multiple defendants, including Union Pacific, the Las Vegas Downtown Redevelopment Agency, and Monsanto’s successors. The claims sought compensatory and punitive damages for injuries stemming from the alleged contamination. Monsanto’s successors removed the action to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The plaintiffs moved to remand the case back to state court, and the District Court granted the motion, finding that the local controversy exception to CAFA applied since the alleged injuries were localized to Clark County.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s remand order de novo. The Ninth Circuit held that CAFA’s local controversy exception did not apply because the principal injuries resulting from Monsanto’s conduct were not shown to have been incurred primarily in Nevada. The court found that plaintiffs’ allegations described nationwide distribution and harm from PCBs, with no facts indicating that Nevada experienced principal or unique injuries. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s order remanding the case and ordered the case to proceed in federal court. View "EMPLOYEES AT THE CLARK COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER V. MONSANTO COMPANY" on Justia Law

The plaintiff held a variable-rate credit card issued by a bank, with an agreement specifying that the interest rate for each billing cycle would be determined by adding a constant margin to the U.S. Prime Rate as published in The Wall Street Journal on the last day of each month. When the Federal Reserve increased the Federal Funds Rate multiple times from March 2022 to July 2023, the Prime Rate—and consequently, the plaintiff’s credit card interest rate—increased significantly. The new, higher rate was applied to the cardholder’s outstanding balances for the entire billing cycle, including balances incurred before the Prime Rate increased. The plaintiff, dissatisfied with paying higher interest on previous balances, filed a class action alleging that the bank’s method of calculating and applying the interest rate violated the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (CARD Act) and California’s Unfair Competition Law.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding that the bank’s method fell within a statutory exception in the CARD Act. The court found that the credit card agreement’s use of the Prime Rate, which is publicly available and not controlled by the bank, satisfied the CARD Act’s exception for variable rates tied to an external index.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The appellate court held that the agreement complied with 15 U.S.C. § 1666i-1(b)(2), as the only variable affecting the rate was the Prime Rate, which was not under the bank’s control. The court found no violation of the CARD Act and affirmed the district court’s dismissal, holding that the bank’s method of setting variable rates according to the Prime Rate was lawful under the statute’s exception. View "MILLIKEN V. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A." on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case acquired two parcels of property in Montana in 1991 and 2004, respectively. Both properties are subject to a 1962 easement their predecessors-in-interest granted to the United States for part of Robbins Gulch Road, which traverses their land before entering the Bitterroot National Forest. The easement was originally intended for timber harvesting activities, but over the decades, the public used the road to access the National Forest. The plaintiffs became concerned that public use of the easement interfered with their enjoyment of their property and, in 2018, brought suit against the United States seeking to quiet title, arguing the easement did not authorize general public access and that the Forest Service had failed to limit and patrol such use.After extensive discovery, the United States District Court for the District of Montana dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims as time-barred under the Quiet Title Act’s twelve-year statute of limitations. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, also upholding the conclusion that the statute of limitations was jurisdictional. The Supreme Court, however, reversed on the jurisdictional question, holding that the Quiet Title Act’s statute of limitations is a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule, but did not disturb the lower courts’ findings regarding timeliness. On remand, the district court again granted summary judgment to the government, applying the law of the case doctrine and finding plaintiffs’ claims untimely. Plaintiffs appealed once more.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. It held that the district court did not err in applying the law of the case doctrine, and, after a de novo review, concluded that the long history of public use of the easement put plaintiffs on notice well before the limitations period, rendering their 2018 claims untimely. The court also rejected plaintiffs’ equitable estoppel argument due to a lack of government affirmative misconduct and found that both claims accrued simultaneously. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "WILKINS V. USA" on Justia Law

A group of unhoused veterans with severe disabilities and mental illnesses sued the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), seeking to restore the West Los Angeles VA Grounds for its intended use: housing disabled veterans. The VA had leased portions of this land to third parties—including the Regents of the University of California, Brentwood School, and Bridgeland Resources LLC—for uses that did not principally benefit veterans. Plaintiffs argued that the lack of supportive housing denied meaningful access to VA healthcare, violated the Rehabilitation Act, and placed them at serious risk of institutionalization. They also challenged VA policies that counted disability benefits as income, restricting access to supportive housing, and claimed that certain land-use agreements violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Additionally, they asserted that the original 1888 Deed created a charitable trust that the VA had breached.The United States District Court for the Central District of California held a four-week bench trial, finding that the VA’s land-use leases with UCLA, Brentwood School, and Bridgeland Resources LLC were unlawful, voided these leases, and enjoined the VA from renegotiating them. The court certified a plaintiff class, ordered the VA to build supportive housing, found the VA and HUD violated the Rehabilitation Act in several respects, and determined that the VA had breached fiduciary duties under a charitable trust theory, invalidating certain leases on that basis as well.On review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The Ninth Circuit held that federal courts retained jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ Rehabilitation Act claims, upheld class certification, and affirmed findings of meaningful access, Olmstead, and facial discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act against the VA. The court reversed judgment against HUD, and also reversed the charitable trust claim, finding no judicially enforceable fiduciary duties under the Leasing Act. The court vacated related injunctive relief and judgments based on the charitable trust theory, including those against UCLA, Brentwood, and Bridgeland. The injunctions were modified, allowing the VA to renegotiate leases if compliant with statutory requirements. View "Powers v. McDonough" on Justia Law

Industrial Park Center LLC, operating as Mainspring Capital Group, owned a commercial building in Tempe, Arizona, insured under an all-risk property insurance policy issued by Great Northern Insurance Company. The building suffered structural damage attributed to years of water exposure from routine cleaning practices by a seafood distribution tenant. After an initial incident in 2010, Mainspring took several remediation steps but did not implement all recommended preventative measures. A subsequent episode of damage was discovered in 2021, leading Mainspring to file an insurance claim. Great Northern denied coverage, citing policy exclusions such as wear-and-tear and settling, and disputed whether the loss was “fortuitous.”Mainspring initiated suit in the Superior Court for Maricopa County, alleging breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to Great Northern and denied Mainspring’s motion, concluding that the loss was not fortuitous, as it was “reasonably foreseeable and almost certain to occur” given the tenant’s ongoing practices and Mainspring’s failure to take all preventative steps. The district court also awarded Great Northern attorneys’ fees.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit observed that Arizona law does not define “fortuitous” for insurance purposes. Recognizing the issue’s novelty and importance for public policy and contract interpretation, the Ninth Circuit certified the following question to the Arizona Supreme Court: Whether property damage is “fortuitous” when, based on the insured’s knowledge at the time the policy was issued, it was reasonably foreseeable that such damage was almost certain to occur if certain preventative measures were not taken. The court’s disposition was to certify this question, not to affirm, reverse, or vacate the lower court’s judgment. View "INDUSTRIAL PARK CENTER LLC V. GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY" on Justia Law

Elizabeth Holmes and Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani founded Theranos, a company that claimed its technology could run fast, accurate, and affordable blood tests using just a drop of blood. Holmes served as CEO, and Balwani as President and COO. They raised significant investments by making representations about the capabilities of Theranos’s proprietary devices, financial health, and business relationships. However, investigations revealed that the technology was unreliable, Theranos often relied on third-party devices, and its partnerships and finances were misrepresented to investors. Both Holmes and Balwani were indicted for conspiracy and wire fraud relating to investors and patients; they were tried separately, and each was convicted of multiple counts of fraud.Proceedings were held before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Holmes was convicted on four investor-related counts, while Balwani was convicted on all counts, including those related to patients and investors. At sentencing, both were found responsible for losses to multiple victims and given lengthy prison terms. The district court also ordered them to pay $452 million in restitution to fourteen victims, finding that the money invested constituted the lost property.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed and affirmed the convictions, sentences, and restitution order. The panel held that while some testimony by former Theranos employees should have been treated as expert opinion under Rule 702, any error was harmless. The court found no abuse of discretion in admitting a regulatory report, limiting cross-examination, or excluding certain hearsay statements. It rejected arguments of constructive amendment and Napue violations. The panel clarified restitution calculations under the MVRA, holding that the victims’ actual losses equaled their total investments, affirming the district court’s order. View "United States v. Holmes" on Justia Law