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

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

Yelp, a company that publishes consumer reviews, introduced a notification on its business pages for crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) in 2022, stating that these centers typically offer limited medical services. After objections from several state Attorneys General, including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Yelp replaced the notice with one stating that CPCs do not offer abortions or abortion referrals. Despite this change, Paxton initiated an investigation and sent Yelp a notice of intent to file suit, alleging that the original notice violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices – Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). Yelp then filed a lawsuit in federal court, claiming First Amendment retaliation, and sought to enjoin Paxton from further action. The next day, Paxton filed a state court action against Yelp.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Yelp’s federal case based on the Younger abstention doctrine, which prevents federal courts from interfering with ongoing state judicial proceedings. The district court found that the requirements for Younger abstention were met and that the bad faith exception did not apply.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that Younger’s bad faith exception did not apply because Yelp had not sufficiently established that the Texas civil enforcement action was brought without a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid judgment or was facially meritless. The court also found that Yelp failed to show that Paxton’s enforcement action was motivated by a desire to harass or retaliate against Yelp for its support of abortion rights. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying Yelp’s request for discovery and an evidentiary hearing. View "YELP INC. V. PAXTON" on Justia Law

The case involves codefendant brothers Joshua and Jamie Yafa, who were convicted of securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud for their involvement in a "pump-and-dump" stock manipulation scheme. They promoted the stock of Global Wholehealth Products Corporation (GWHP) through various means, including a "phone room" and social media, to inflate its price. Once the stock price rose significantly, they sold their shares, earning over $1 million. Following the sale, the stock price plummeted, causing significant losses to individual investors. A grand jury indicted the Yafas, along with their associates Charles Strongo and Brian Volmer, who pled guilty and testified against the Yafas at trial.The United States District Court for the Southern District of California sentenced the Yafas, applying the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) § 2B1.1. The court used Application Note 3(B) from the commentary to § 2B1.1, which allows courts to use the gain from the offense as an alternative measure for calculating loss when the actual loss cannot be reasonably determined. The district court found it difficult to calculate the full amount of investor losses and thus relied on the gain as a proxy. This resulted in a fourteen-level increase in the offense level for both brothers, leading to sentences of thirty-two months for Joshua and seventeen months for Jamie.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the term "loss" in § 2B1.1 is genuinely ambiguous and that Application Note 3(B)'s instruction to use gain as an alternative measure is a reasonable interpretation. The court concluded that the district court did not err in using the gain from the Yafas's offenses to calculate the loss and affirmed the district court's decision. View "USA V. YAFA" on Justia Law

Theresa Brooke, a woman with disabilities who uses a wheelchair, visited the Ramada by Wyndham Burbank Airport hotel in August 2023. She alleged that architectural barriers at the hotel deterred her from entering. Brooke sued the hotel's owner, Tsay JBR, LLC, for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. She sought injunctive relief under the ADA and statutory damages under the Unruh Act.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted partial summary judgment in favor of Brooke, finding that Tsay JBR had violated the ADA due to the lack of an access aisle in the hotel's passenger loading zone. This ADA violation also constituted a violation of the Unruh Act. However, the court found that there was a factual issue regarding whether Brooke personally encountered the violation or was deterred by it, which is necessary for statutory damages under the Unruh Act. The district court scheduled a bench trial, concluding that the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial did not apply to claims for statutory damages under the Unruh Act.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and granted Tsay JBR's petition for a writ of mandamus. The Ninth Circuit held that the Seventh Amendment entitles parties in federal court to a jury trial on claims for statutory damages under section 52(a) of the Unruh Act. The court determined that Brooke's claim was legal in nature, both in terms of its historical analog to 18th-century English public accommodations law and the punitive and deterrent nature of the statutory damages sought. The court directed the district court to set the matter for a jury trial. View "TSAY JBR LLC V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA" on Justia Law

Erika Marie Plancarte pleaded guilty to conspiracy to transport an alien into the United States. The plea agreement required the government to recommend a 90-day imprisonment sentence. At the San Ysidro Port of Entry, Plancarte illegally transported a woman and her three children into the U.S., using false documents. She was arrested after admitting to the smuggling.The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California received a presentence report (PSR) that contained ambiguities about the relationship between the woman and the children. Plancarte requested a non-custodial sentence, while the government adhered to the plea agreement, recommending 90 days of custody. The government also clarified the PSR's ambiguities and highlighted Plancarte's criminal history and recidivism, arguing that previous sentences had not deterred her behavior. Plancarte argued that the government breached the plea agreement by including additional commentary and referencing her criminal history.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the government did not implicitly breach the plea agreement. The government’s references to Plancarte’s criminal history and its clarification of the PSR were permissible and did not undermine the plea agreement. The court found that the government’s comments were made in good faith and were consistent with advocating for the agreed-upon sentence. The court also noted that the government was not required to present mitigating evidence. Consequently, the appellate waiver in the plea agreement was enforced, and the appeal was dismissed. View "USA V. PLANCARTE" on Justia Law