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

Jason Powell filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, certifying that he met the eligibility requirements. TICO Construction Company, a creditor, opposed the dismissal of Powell’s case and moved to convert it to a different chapter, arguing that Powell was ineligible for Chapter 13 relief and had filed in bad faith. The bankruptcy court granted Powell’s motion to dismiss without resolving TICO’s eligibility challenge.The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision, holding that Powell had an absolute right to dismiss his Chapter 13 case under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(b), as interpreted by Nichols v. Marana Stockyard & Livestock Mkt., Inc. (In re Nichols). The BAP also noted that the bankruptcy court had other tools to address potential abuse, such as imposing conditions on dismissal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the BAP’s decision. The court held that under the plain text of § 1307(b), a debtor has an absolute right to dismiss a Chapter 13 case if the case has not been converted to another chapter. The court rejected TICO’s argument that the bankruptcy court must determine a debtor’s eligibility before granting a dismissal request. The court explained that a debtor’s certification of eligibility in the petition presumptively establishes that the debtor may be a debtor under Chapter 13, and the filing of the petition commences a Chapter 13 case under 11 U.S.C. § 301(a).The Ninth Circuit concluded that the bankruptcy court correctly dismissed Powell’s Chapter 13 case without further inquiry into his eligibility, affirming that Powell had an absolute right to dismiss under § 1307(b). View "IN RE: POWELL V. VAN METER" on Justia Law

A Californian plaintiff purchased several bottles of Banana Boat sunscreen between 2017 and 2020, including Ultra Sport SPF 100, SPF 50, and SPF 30. She later discovered that the SPF 50 bottle contained 0.29 parts per million (ppm) of benzene, a known carcinogen. She alleged that the products were falsely advertised as safe and that the presence of benzene was not disclosed on the labels. The plaintiff claimed she would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less for them, had she known about the benzene contamination.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for lack of Article III standing, concluding that she did not demonstrate a non-speculative increased health risk or actual economic harm. The court relied on FDA guidelines permitting up to 2 ppm of benzene in sunscreen, determining that the plaintiff’s allegations did not establish that 0.29 ppm of benzene posed a credible risk of harm or economic injury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s dismissal. The appellate court held that the district court erred by resolving disputed facts in favor of the defendants and prematurely addressing merits issues intertwined with the jurisdictional question of standing. The Ninth Circuit found that the plaintiff adequately established an injury in fact for purposes of Article III standing, as she alleged economic harm from purchasing a product she would not have bought, or would have paid less for, absent the defendants’ misrepresentations. The court also determined that the plaintiff met the causation and redressability elements of standing, as her injury was likely caused by the defendants' alleged misrepresentations and could be redressed by judicial relief. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "BOWEN V. ENERGIZER HOLDINGS, INC." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Jay and Siv Bennett, along with their corporation Kesha Marketing, Inc., were long-time associates of Isagenix International LLC, a multi-level marketing company. In May 2023, Isagenix informed the Bennetts that it would not renew their accounts, which were set to expire in June 2023. The Bennetts, whose sole income came from Isagenix commissions, sued the company and obtained a preliminary injunction to prevent the termination of their business relationship.The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted the preliminary injunction, finding that the Bennetts were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. The court concluded that the contracts between the Bennetts and Isagenix were likely bilateral and that the modifications allowing Isagenix to terminate the contracts at will were not valid under Arizona law. The district court also found that the Bennetts would suffer irreparable harm due to the contractual limitation on consequential damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with the district court that the Bennetts had shown a likelihood of success on the merits. The Ninth Circuit held that the contracts were likely bilateral and that the modifications were not validly executed under Arizona law. However, the Ninth Circuit found that the district court erred in its analysis of irreparable harm. The appellate court held that a contractual limitation on consequential damages does not constitute irreparable harm for purposes of equity. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case for further proceedings to address the Bennetts' other theories of irreparable injury. View "BENNETT V. ISAGENIX INTERNATIONAL LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves Sam Sarkis Solakyan, who owned multiple medical-imaging companies. Solakyan conspired with physicians and medical schedulers to route unsuspecting patients to his companies for unnecessary MRI scans and other medical services, generating $263 million in claims. The scheme involved bribery and kickbacks to physicians who referred patients to Solakyan’s companies, violating California’s anti-kickback statutes.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California presided over the initial trial. Solakyan was charged with conspiracy to commit honest-services mail fraud and health-care fraud, as well as substantive counts of honest-services mail fraud and aiding and abetting. After a seven-day trial, the jury found Solakyan guilty on all counts. The district court sentenced him to 60 months in prison and ordered him to pay $27,937,175 in restitution to the affected insurers.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed Solakyan’s conviction, holding that honest-services mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346 includes bribery and kickback schemes that deprive patients of their right to honest services from their physicians. The court also held that actual or intended tangible harm is not an element of honest-services fraud. The indictment was found sufficient in alleging willful misconduct for health-care fraud. The court did not find any abuse of discretion in the jury instructions regarding the mens rea for the conspiracy charges or the use of mails in the fraud scheme. However, the court vacated the restitution order, remanding the case for further proceedings to determine if the restitution amount should be reduced by the cost of medically necessary MRIs that insurers would have paid for absent the fraud. View "USA V. SOLAKYAN" on Justia Law

Thomas Mooney, the plaintiff, was employed as the Chief Operating Officer (COO) for Dr. Douglas Fife, Heather Fife, and Fife Dermatology, PC, doing business as Vivida Dermatology. Mooney raised concerns about improper billing practices at Vivida. After a conversation with Dr. Ken Landow, a dermatologist from another practice, Vivida terminated Mooney's employment, citing unauthorized disclosure of confidential information in violation of his employment agreement.The United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted summary judgment in favor of Vivida on all three of Mooney's claims: False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court concluded that Mooney's reporting of billing irregularities did not put Vivida on notice of potentially protected conduct under the FCA. It also found that Mooney had violated the confidentiality provision of his employment agreement and that his claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing failed because he did not argue that Vivida literally complied with the contract.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment. The appellate court held that the district court erred in applying the relevant substantive law for Mooney's FCA retaliation claim and failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Mooney for his breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. The Ninth Circuit clarified that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework applies to FCA retaliation claims and that the Moore test for protected conduct continues to apply following the 2009 amendment to the FCA. The court concluded that Mooney engaged in protected conduct, satisfied the notice requirement, and established genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Vivida's reasons for his termination were pretextual. The court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "MOONEY V. FIFE" on Justia Law

Michael Terpin, a cryptocurrency investor, sued AT&T Mobility, LLC after hackers gained control over his phone number through a fraudulent "SIM swap," received password reset messages for his online accounts, and stole $24,000,000 of his cryptocurrency. Terpin alleged that AT&T failed to adequately secure his account, leading to the theft.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed some of Terpin's claims for failure to state a claim and later granted summary judgment against him on his remaining claims. The court dismissed Terpin's fraud claims and punitive damages claim, holding that he failed to allege that AT&T had a duty to disclose or made a promise with no intent to perform. The court also held that Terpin failed to allege facts sufficient to support punitive damages. On summary judgment, the court ruled that Terpin's negligence claims were barred by the economic loss rule, his breach of contract claim was barred by the limitation of liability clause in the parties' agreement, and his claim under Section 222 of the Federal Communications Act (FCA) failed because the SIM swap did not disclose any information protected under the Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Terpin's fraud claims and punitive damages claim, agreeing that Terpin failed to allege a duty to disclose or an intent not to perform. The court also affirmed the summary judgment on Terpin's breach of contract claim, holding that consequential damages were barred by the limitation of liability clause. The court affirmed the summary judgment on Terpin's negligence claims, finding them foreclosed by the economic loss rule. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment on Terpin's claim under Section 222 of the FCA, holding that Terpin created a triable issue over whether the fraudulent SIM swap gave hackers access to information protected under the Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this claim. View "TERPIN V. AT&T MOBILITY LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves doctors who create and administer a stem cell mixture called stromal vascular fraction (SVF) by removing fat tissue from patients, processing it to concentrate stem cells, and then re-administering it to the same patients. The FDA inspected the clinics and found that the doctors were manufacturing and administering unapproved drug products, leading to a lawsuit alleging violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).The United States District Court for the Central District of California held a bench trial and ruled in favor of the defendants. The court concluded that the SVF was not a "drug" under the FDCA and that the same-day SVF treatment fell under the "same surgical procedure" (SSP) exception, which exempts certain procedures from FDA regulation. The district court found that the cells in the same-day SVF were not altered chemically or biologically and that the procedure did not introduce any foreign material into the body.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that the SVF constitutes a "drug" under the FDCA based on the plain text of the statute, which defines drugs as articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or intended to affect the structure or any function of the body. The court also rejected the defendants' argument that their same-day SVF treatment was exempt from FDA regulation under the SSP exception. The court concluded that the SSP exception applies only if the removed and implanted human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products (HCT/Ps) are the same, and in this case, the removed fat tissue and the implanted SVF are not the same.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "USA V. CALIFORNIA STEM CELL TREATMENT CENTER, INC." on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff alleged that a Montana Probation Officer used excessive force during an encounter in a parking lot. The incident was captured by surveillance footage, which was later auto-deleted. Despite efforts to preserve the footage, the State failed to do so, leading to the plaintiff's motion for sanctions against the State for the loss of evidence.The United States District Court for the District of Montana found that the State acted recklessly in failing to preserve the footage but did not act with gross negligence or willfulness. Invoking its inherent authority, the district court sanctioned the State by instructing the jury that it was established as a matter of law that the officer used excessive force. The jury awarded the plaintiff $75,000 in damages for the excessive-force claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the district court committed legal error by relying on its inherent authority to impose sanctions. The appellate court determined that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) governs the loss of electronically stored information and the sanctions imposed. Rule 37(e)(2) allows for severe sanctions only if the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information's use in litigation. The district court's findings confirmed that no such intent was present, making the sanctions unlawful.As a result, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's sanctions orders, reversed the verdict and judgment against the probation officer, vacated the award of attorneys' fees to the plaintiff, and remanded the case for a new trial on the excessive-force claim. View "GREGORY V. STATE OF MONTANA" on Justia Law

The case involves an encounter between the Hawai'i Police Department (HPD) and Steven Hyer, which resulted in Hyer's death. On June 22, 2018, HPD officers responded to calls about Hyer's erratic behavior. Hyer, who had a history of mental illness, barricaded himself in his apartment. After several hours of failed negotiations and attempts to subdue him, including the use of a Taser and chemical munitions, HPD officers deployed a police dog. When Hyer allegedly threatened the officers with a compound bow, Corporal Torres shot and killed him.The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, the City and County of Honolulu, and several HPD officers. The court excluded the plaintiffs' expert reports, finding them speculative, unreliable, and containing legal conclusions. The court ruled that the use of force was objectively reasonable and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and various state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court erred in excluding the entirety of the plaintiffs' expert reports, as the reports were based on sufficient facts and data. The Ninth Circuit found that the exclusion of these reports was prejudicial because they created genuine disputes of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the use of deadly force and chemical munitions, as well as potential ADA violations. The court reversed the district court's summary judgment on these claims but affirmed the grant of qualified immunity regarding the use of the police dog, as the law was not clearly established. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "HYER V. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU" on Justia Law

The plaintiff pleaded guilty to obstructing a peace officer under California Penal Code § 148(a)(1) after an incident where San Diego County Deputy Sheriffs came to his home to investigate a report of domestic violence. During the encounter, the plaintiff did not comply with the deputies' orders, leading to his being pushed to the floor, which he claims resulted in a dislocated shoulder and rotator cuff tear. He later filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the deputies used excessive force.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed the plaintiff's complaint, citing Heck v. Humphrey, which bars § 1983 actions if a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction. The district court concluded that the plaintiff's resistance and the force used by the deputies were part of the same factual context and could not be separated into isolated events. Therefore, the court held that the § 1983 action was barred by Heck and denied the plaintiff's request to amend his complaint.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that Heck did not bar the plaintiff's suit because he engaged in multiple acts of resistance or obstruction that could serve as the factual basis for his conviction, both before and after the use of force he claimed was excessive. Since the plaintiff's guilty plea did not specify which act was the basis of his conviction, success in his § 1983 action would not necessarily undermine his conviction. The court emphasized that a § 1983 action is barred by Heck only if success in the action would necessarily imply the invalidity of the plaintiff's conviction. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "MARTELL V. COLE" on Justia Law