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

In 2016, the FRA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing a national minimum requirement of two crew members for trains. In 2019, the FRA issued an order purporting to adopt a nationwide maximum one-person crew rule and to preempt "any state laws concerning that subject matter." Two Unions and three states petitioned for review of the Order under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).As a preliminary matter, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the Unions' petition because venue was not proper under 28 U.S.C. 2343. The panel explained that the Unions' principal officers were not in the Ninth Circuit. The panel concluded that it had jurisdiction over the States' petitions because they were sufficiently aggrieved to invoke jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2344. On the merits, the panel held that the FRA's Order does not implicitly preempt state safety rules, that the FRA failed to comply with the APA's notice-and-comment provisions in issuing the Order, and that the order is arbitrary and capricious. The panel explained that the Order's basis for its action did not withstand scrutiny, and the FRA's contemporaneous explanation was lacking. In this case, the States met their burden of showing that the issuance of the Order violated the APA. Accordingly, the panel dismissed the petition for review but granted the States' petitions, vacating the Order. View "Transportation Division of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers v. Federal Railroad Administration" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants in an action brought by plaintiff and his family under the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA). Plaintiff and his family sought to extend their tenancy in defendants' property based on plaintiff's medical condition.The panel agreed with the district court that, under 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3)(B), making "accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services" was not necessary to afford plaintiff and his family "equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." The panel held that, absent an accommodation, the plaintiff's disability must cause the plaintiffs to lose an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. In this case, defendants offered plaintiff and his family, who were on a month-to-month tenancy, terminable at will, a new lease for one year at an increased rent. However, plaintiff and his family turned down the new lease, and never credibly argued that they turned down the lease for any reason related to plaintiff's disability. Upon termination of the lease, plaintiff and his family were in the same position as a family with no disability that had had its lease terminated. The panel explained that it could not find a connection between plaintiff's disability and his request to remain in the home until January 22, 2018. Therefore, defendants were under no obligation to extend the tenancy-termination date. Finally, the panel agreed with the Third and Sixth Circuits and held that there is no standalone liability under the FHAA for a landlord’s failure to engage in an interactive process. View "Howard v. HMK Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his sentence based on the ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations that took place before defendant was formally accused of any crime. Traditionally, the panel explained that the Sixth Amendment has been interpreted to mean that the right to counsel attaches when a criminal defendant is formally charged. Defendant asked the panel to reexamine the traditional approach to attachment of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in order to recognize that the right to counsel may attach before there has been a formal charge.The panel concluded that it is not in a position to do so, however, because it cannot overrule binding circuit precedent. The panel also concluded that this is not an appropriate case to ask for an en banc court to consider overruling United States v. Hayes, 231 F.3d 663, 669–70 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc), since this defendant was appointed counsel, and the record indicates that defendant's counsel was not ineffective. View "United States v. Olson" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order compelling arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act and dismissing a putative class action brought by plaintiff against MoneyLion, operator of a smartphone app offering financial services to its customers. Plaintiff alleged that MoneyLion violated California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act when it refused to allow her to cancel her membership after she fell behind on her fees, deposits, and loan payments.The panel concluded that the district court correctly determined that the arbitration provision at issue was valid and enforceable because it allowed public injunctive relief and did not violate the McGill rule under California law. The panel explained that in California, litigants proceeding in individual lawsuits may request public injunctive relief without becoming private attorneys general. In this case, the arbitration agreement authorized the arbitrator to award all injunctive remedies available in an individual lawsuit under California law. View "DiCarlo v. MoneyLion, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of immigration relief to petitioner. The panel held that a conviction for importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms without a license, 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(1)(A), is categorically an "illicit trafficking in firearms" aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(C). Therefore, petitioner is ineligible for asylum based on his conviction under section 922(a)(1)(A). In this case, the panel deferred to the BIA's interpretation of "illicit trafficking" in Matter of Davis, 20 I. & N. Dec. 536 (BIA 1992), that illicit trafficking in a controlled substance – another aggravated felony – includes any felony conviction involving the "unlawful trading or dealing of any controlled substance." The panel explained that section 922(a)(1)(A) is a categorical match to "illicit trafficking in firearms" under section 1101(a)(43)(C). View "Chacon v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In this case, the Knights Templar, a local drug cartel, murdered petitioner's husband, twice threatened her life, and forcibly took her property in retaliation for helping her son escape recruitment by fleeing to the United States. The Board assumed without explicitly deciding that petitioner's social groups, comprised of her family or property owners, were cognizable.The Ninth Circuit held that substantial evidence does not support the BIA's conclusion that petitioner was not persecuted "on account of" her membership in a particular social group. Under the panel's case law, it is sufficient under our mixed-motive precedent for the petitioner to show that a protected ground "was a cause of the persecutors' acts." Furthermore, the panel found Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d at 910, instructive and concluded that Parada indicates that such sweeping retaliation towards a family unit over time can demonstrate a kind of animus distinct from "purely personal retribution." The panel explained that the BIA erred in its nexus analysis for both petitioner's asylum claim and her withholding of removal claim. The panel remanded with instructions for the BIA to reconsider petitioner's asylum claim, and for the BIA to consider whether petitioner is eligible for withholding of removal under the proper "a reason" standard. The panel denied the petition as it relates to petitioner's claim for relief under CAT. View "Naranjo Garcia v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the district court's order denying his motion for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum directed to his current custodian, the Warden of FCI Phoenix, to transport him to Los Angeles for his initial appearance there on an arrest warrant for violating conditions of supervised release, proceedings for which a detainer has now been lodged against him with the prison. Defendant is currently serving a custodial sentence for federal crimes he committed in the Eastern District of Arkansas while on supervised release from an earlier federal conviction in the Central District of California.The Ninth Circuit dismissed defendant's appeal based on lack of jurisdiction, concluding that the denial of defendant's motion is not a final or appealable collateral order. The panel explained that the order defendant seeks is a precursor to contesting the alleged supervised release violation which led to the arrest warrant and the pending detainer, and it does not fall within the rubric of collateral orders which are "effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment." The panel denied the pending motion to expedite as moot. View "United States v. Repp" on Justia Law

After a police officer fatally shot her son, plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and California law against the officer. The officer shot plaintiff's son seven times in front of a convenient store after the two were involved in a physical altercation.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff's state law negligence claim. The panel explained that the district court erroneously conflated the legal standards under the Fourth Amendment and California negligence law. The panel held that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence that the officer's shooting of her son could be found negligent by a reasonable juror under the broader formulation of reasonableness in California law. In this case, the district court inaccurately concluded that plaintiff did not point to any evidence probative of the fact that her son exhibited symptoms of mental illness that would have been apparent to the officer; did not consider that a jury could find the officer's pre-shooting conduct unreasonable under California law, given the son's potential mental illness; and misinterpreted the Ninth Circuit precedent set forth in Billington v. Smith, 292 F.3d 1177 (9th Cir. 2002), in assessing the reasonableness of the officer's conduct at the time of the shooting. Therefore, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Tabares v. City of Huntington Beach" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Lima Corporate in a diversity action brought by plaintiffs, alleging product liability and negligence claims relating to a hip implant. The panel held that in light of the statutory text, context, and stated purpose, Lima Corporate was a biomaterials supplier of its Hip Stem – a "component part" supplied "for use in the manufacture of an implant" pursuant to the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act (BAAA), 21 U.S.C. 1602(1)(A). In this case, Lima Corporate was immune from liability under the BAAA and, under the circumstances, could not be impleaded under section 1606. View "Connell v. Lima Corporate" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment affirming the ALJ's denial of claimant's application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) under the Social Security Act. The panel published this decision to draw attention to the government's incorrect description, in its briefs in this and in other recent SSI cases, of the standard of review.In an SSI case, the panel reviews the decision of the ALJ for substantial evidence. If substantial evidence in the record supports the ALJ's decision, the panel must defer to the ALJ. In the absence of substantial evidence, however, the panel must set aside the ALJ's decision. The panel is not restricted to setting aside the ALJ's decision only when the evidence in the record compels a contrary conclusion. The panel rejected the government's application of I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (1992), which is an immigration case, and clarified that Elias-Zacarias does not describe the standard of review in an SSI case. In this case, considering the record as a whole, the panel held that the ALJ's disability determination was supported by substantial evidence. View "Ahearn v. Saul" on Justia Law