by
Oracle filed a copyright infringement suit against Rimini, a provider of third-party support for Oracle's enterprise software, and Rimini's CEO. The Ninth Circuit affirmed partial summary judgment and partial judgment after trial on Oracle's claims that Rimini infringed its copyright by copying under the license of one customer for work performed for other existing customers or for unknown or future customers; reversed judgment after trial in regard to Oracle's claims under the California Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA), the Nevada Computer Crimes Law (NCCL), and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), because taking data from a website, using a method prohibited by the applicable terms of use, when the taking itself generally was permitted, did not violate the CDAFA or the NCCL; reversed the determination that Rimini violated the UCL; reduced the award of damages based on Rimini's alleged violation of the CDAFA and NCCL; affirmed the award of prejudgment interest on the copyright claims; reversed the permanent injunction based on violations of the CDAFA; vacated the permanent injunction based on copyright infringement; reversed with respect to the CEO's liability for attorneys' fees; vacated the fee award and remanded for reconsideration; reduced the award of taxable costs; and affirmed the award of non-taxable costs. View "Oracle USA v. Rimini Street" on Justia Law

by
Appellate courts are not deprived of the jurisdiction conferred by 9 U.S.C. 16(a) when a vacatur order also remands for a new arbitration. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's vacatur of defendant's arbitration award. The panel held that it had jurisdiction in this appeal and that the arbitrator did not exceed his powers where his award was not completely irrational and did not exhibit manifest disregard of the law. Because the district court resolved the petition on only one of the several grounds for vacatur that plaintiff asserted, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Sanchez v. Elizondo" on Justia Law

by
The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision concluding that petitioner was not removable for a controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). The panel held that the state crimes underlying his removal, Nevada Revised Statutes 199.480 and 454.351, were not a categorical match to the federal generic statutes because they were overbroad and indivisible. Accordingly, the statute may not be used as a predicate offense to support removal. View "Villavicencio v. Sessions" on Justia Law

by
Idaho's criminalization of misrepresentations to enter a production facility, Idaho Code 18-7042(1)(a), and ban on audio and video recordings of a production facility's operations, Idaho 18-7042(1)(d), covered protected speech under the First Amendment and did not survive constitutional scrutiny. The Interference with Agricultural Production law was enacted after a secretly-filmed expose of operations at an Idaho dairy farm went live on the internet and depicted dairy workers committing various acts of animal cruelty. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of ALDF and vacated in part its permanent injunction against enforcement of the statute. The panel upheld the provisions that fell within constitutional parameters, but struck down those limitations that impinged on protected speech. View "Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Wasden" on Justia Law

by
The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's decision dismissing his appeal challenging the IJ's competence determination. The panel held that the BIA in two related ways abused its discretion in affirming the IJ’s competence evaluation and determination. First, the BIA affirmed the IJ's inaccurate factual finding about the mental health evidence in the record and failed to recognize that the medical record upon which the BIA and the IJ heavily relied was nearly a year old and may no longer reflect petitioner's mental state. Second, the BIA abused its discretion by affirming the IJ's departure from the standards set forth in Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I&N Dec. at 480–81. In this case, the IJ did not adequately ensure that DHS complied with its obligation to provide the court with relevant materials in its possession that would inform the court about petitioner's mental competency. The panel remanded with instructions. View "Calderon-Rodriguez v. Sessions" on Justia Law

Posted in: Immigration Law

by
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for plaintiffs in an action challenging the constitutionality of California Civil Code Section 1748.1(a). Section 1748.1(a) prohibits retailers from imposing a surcharge on customers who make payments with credit cards, but permits discounts for payments by cash or other means. Determining that plaintiffs had standing, the panel held that the statute as applied to these plaintiffs violates the First Amendment. In this case, Section 1748.1 restricts plaintiffs' non-misleading commercial speech; this restriction did not directly advance the Attorney General's asserted state interest in preventing consumer deception; nor was it narrowly drawn to achieving that interest. View "Italian Colors Restaurant v. Becerra" on Justia Law

by
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order denying qualified immunity to defendant, the former-President of Southern Oregon University, in an action alleging that she violated plaintiff's liberty interest. Plaintiff, a university employee, alleged that defendant released stigmatizing information in the form of a letter in connection with his termination. The panel held that the district court's characterization of the letter's contents as stigmatizing was erroneous and thus defendant was entitled to qualified immunity. Furthermore, even if the content of the letter were stigmatizing, it was not clearly established law that charges other than fraud, dishonesty, and immorality would trigger the requirements of a name-clearing hearing. The panel remanded to the district court with directions to enter summary judgment in favor of defendant. View "Kramer v. Cullinan" on Justia Law

by
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits and the partial denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The panel held that the ALJ did not err by finding plaintiff's disability onset date without calling on a medical advisor at the hearing. In this case, the record was adequate even before plaintiff saw a mental health specialist and no reasonable medical expert could have inferred that her disability began before May 2010. Therefore, Social Security Ruling 83-20 did not require the ALJ to consult a medical advisor before determining plaintiff's disability onset date. View "Wellington v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

Posted in: Public Benefits

by
The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendants' misdemeanor convictions under 8 U.S.C. 1325(a)(1) for attempting to enter the United States "at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers." The panel held that a place "designated by immigration officers" refers to a specific immigration facility, not an entire geographic area. In this case, there was no dispute that defendants did not enter the United States through a facility where immigration officials could accept applications for entry. Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants attempted to enter the United States in a place other than as designated by immigration officers. View "United States v. Aldana" on Justia Law

by
The Ninth Circuit certified the following questions to the Supreme Court of California: 1. Under the California Labor Code and applicable regulations, is an employer of ambulance attendants working twenty-four hour shifts required to relieve attendants of all duties during rest breaks, including the duty to be available to respond to an emergency call if one arises during a rest period? 2. Under the California Labor Code and applicable regulations, may an employer of ambulance attendants working twenty-four hour shifts require attendants to be available to respond to emergency calls during their meal periods without a written agreement that contains an on duty meal period revocation clause? If such a clause is required, will a general at-will employment clause satisfy this requirement? 3. Do violations of meal period regulations, which require payment of a "premium wage" for each improper meal period, give rise to claims under sections 203 and 225 of the California Labor Code where the employer does not include the premium wage in the employee's pay or pay statements during the course of the violations? View "Stewart v. San Luis Ambulance, Inc." on Justia Law