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

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision, holding that the BIA permissibly concluded that Oregon Revised Statute 164.225 is a crime involving moral turpitude and that precedent forecloses the constitutional vagueness argument. The panel applied the categorical approach and concluded that the Oregon statute is overbroad as to intent and as to the type of structure involved. Furthermore, the Oregon statute is divisible where, by its plain text, the statute appears divisible between burglary of a dwelling on the one hand, and burglary of a non-dwelling on the other. In this case, petitioner's conviction for first-degree burglary, when involving a dwelling, is a CIMT and thus he is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. Finally, the court concluded that precedent foreclosed petitioner's argument that the phrase "crime involving moral turpitude" is unconstitutionally vague. View "Diaz-Flores v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order certifying three classes in a multi-district antitrust case alleging a price-fixing conspiracy by StarKist and Tri-Union, producers of packaged tuna. Producers challenged the district court's determination that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)'s "predominance" requirement was satisfied by expert statistical evidence finding classwide impact based on averaging assumptions and pooled transaction data.Although the panel has not previously addressed the proper burden of proof at the class certification stage, the panel held that a district court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff has established predominance under Rule 23(b)(3). The panel ultimately concluded that this form of statistical or "representative" evidence can be used to establish predominance, but the district court abused its discretion by not resolving the factual disputes necessary to decide the requirement before certifying these classes. Therefore, the panel vacated the district court's order certifying the classes and remanded for the district court to determine the number of uninjured parties in the proposed class based on the dueling statistical evidence. View "Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Intuitive Surgical, the designer and manufacturer of the da Vinci surgical robot, in a product liability action brought by plaintiff and her husband, holding that the action was time-barred under California's two-year statute of limitations under California Code of Civil Procedure 335.1.The panel concluded that the two-year California—not three-year Connecticut—statute of limitations applies to plaintiff's claim. The panel explained that, although the district court erred by failing to consider whether Connecticut had a legitimate interest in seeing its law applied, the district court correctly held that California's statute of limitations governs the claims. The panel also concluded that the Tolling Agreement does not render plaintiff's claims timely. In this case, because the Tolling Agreement expressly preserved Intuitive's statute-of-limitations defense for "the applicable" jurisdiction, Intuitive is entitled to employ its statute-of-limitations defense under California law. Finally, the panel concluded that equitable estoppel did not apply to plaintiff's claims where she failed to submit evidence identifying a misrepresentation, material omission, or false promise made on behalf of Intuitive. View "Rustico v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting in part a union's motion to dismiss and holding that five claims brought by a union member were preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) and were thus "converted" into section 301 claims. In this dispute between union members and their union, plaintiff filed suit in state court challenging the trusteeship as violating the Nevada Service Employees Union's (the Local) constitution, the Service Employees International Union's (the International), and an affiliation agreement between the two organizations. After removal to federal court, the district court granted the Local's board's (the Union) motion to dismiss in part.The panel concluded that section 301 completely preempts claims that require interpretation of a union constitution, to the extent the constitution is a contract between unions. The panel explained that savings clauses included in the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act did not repeal section 301's preemptive force. The panel also concluded that plaintiff's five claims required analysis of at least one section 301 labor contract. Therefore, plaintiff's claims were preempted and removable. View "Garcia v. Service Employees International Union" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review of the BIA's decision reversing the IJ's grant of asylum and withholding of removal to petitioner. The panel held that it was compelled to conclude that petitioner established a nexus between her mistreatment and her feminist political opinion and the BIA necessarily concluded that she carried her burden to prove the other elements of her claims for asylum and withholding of removal.The panel denied the government's motion to remand so that the BIA can consider Matter of A-B- II's effect on nexus, concluding that Matter of A-B- II did not change the standard for establishing nexus, at least in this circuit. The panel has repeatedly held that political opinions encompass more than electoral politics or formal political ideology or action. Like the Third Circuit, the panel had little doubt that feminism qualifies as a political opinion within the meaning of the relevant statutes. In this case, substantial evidence does not support the BIA's conclusion that the record lacks evidence of a nexus between petitioner's persecution and her feminist political opinion. Rather, the panel concluded that petitioner had an actual or imputed political opinion and she was persecuted because of that political opinion. Finally, the petition presented a recognized exception to the ordinary remand rule under I.N.S. v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (per curiam). The panel remanded for the Attorney General to exercise his discretion in determining whether to grant petitioner asylum. If he does not grant asylum, petitioner shall receive withholding of removal. View "Rodriguez Tornes v. Garland" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an Idaho prisoner, filed suit alleging that the Idaho Department of Corrections (IDOC) and its medical provider, Corizon, were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs and acted with negligence. Primarily at issue is whether the district court erred by excluding plaintiff's expert witnesses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1), which was case dispositive, because he did not properly disclose his experts under Rule 26(a)(2).The panel concluded that the district court did not err because plaintiff repeatedly failed to meet his disclosure obligations, the district court reasonably concluded plaintiff's failures were not substantially justified or harmless, and he never moved for a lesser sanction. Therefore, plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact for trial. The panel also concluded that the district court correctly found that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Furthermore, the panel declined to construe plaintiff's Health Services Request as a properly filed grievance. View "Merchant v. Corizon Health, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court's order transferring an action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) from the Northern District of California to Minnesota federal court pursuant to a forum selection clause in a retirement plan. The panel held that mandamus relief was not warranted because the district court did not clearly err in transferring the case. The panel explained that courts are in near universal agreement: ERISA does not bar forum selection clauses. Therefore, the panel found no reason to disagree with their well-reasoned conclusion. In this case, the plan contained a forum selection clause and the district court properly enforced that clause. View "In re Becker" on Justia Law

In a published order, the Ninth Circuit denied a motion for attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) in a case in which the panel had previously remanded petitioner's application for relief from removal to the BIA for reconsideration in light of the en banc court's intervening decision in Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).The panel concluded that petitioner was not entitled to attorney's fees because the government's position was substantially justified. In this case, the government seeks a voluntary remand and the panel has already recognized that the en banc decision in Bringas-Rodriguez acted as intervening case law. The panel rejected petitioner's contentions to the contrary. Therefore, because the government's position was substantially justified, EAJA fees are not appropriate, and the panel need not decide whether petitioner was a prevailing party, or whether there are special circumstances rendering an award unjust. View "Meza-Vazquez v. Garland" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit agreed with the Second Circuit that the amount in controversy in a Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act enforcement action can be measured by either the benefit to the plaintiff or the detriment to the defendant that would result from enforcement of the subpoena. In this case, because there is a good faith allegation that the benefit to plaintiff of obtaining the subpoenaed information in this controversy exceeds $75,000, the panel reversed the district court's order dismissing for want of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings regarding enforcement of the subpoena. View "Maine Community Health Options v. Albertsons Companies, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal for lack of organizational standing of an action brought by two public interest groups against Sanderson Farms, alleging false advertising related to the use of antibiotics. The panel concluded that the groups failed to establish standing through a diversion of resources to combat Sanderson's advertising. In this case, the district court did not err by weighing the evidence and concluding that the various activities proffered by the groups were continuations of non-Sanderson-specific initiatives undertaken in furtherance of their missions to address antibiotic use generally. The panel also concluded that the California Unfair Competition Law claim fails because it is tethered to Sanderson's advertisements. View "Friends of the Earth v. Organic Consumer Ass'n" on Justia Law