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

Metal Jeans, an apparel brand and owner of the non-stylized "METAL" trademark, filed an infringement claim against Metal Sport, a powerlifting brand with a similar but stylized mark. The district court denied both parties' merits motions because material facts remained in dispute, but granted Metal Sport's separate motion for summary judgment on whether Metal Jeans was barred from pressing its infringement claim by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands. In doing so, the district court rejected Metal Jeans' counter-defense that Metal Sport also acted with unclean hands.In a separate memorandum disposition filed simultaneously with this opinion, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court improperly granted summary judgment against Metal Jeans. The panel wrote here to resolve an issue of first impression: the standard of review the panel employs when a district court concludes that a party has acted with unclean hands. The panel held that the appropriate standard of review of a district court's determination to grant summary judgment on the affirmative defense of unclean hands is abuse of discretion. The panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Metal Jeans, Inc. v. Metal Sport, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of an indictment charging defendant of illegal reentry after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. The panel applied the majority's holding in its recently published opinion in United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, —F.3d —, 2021 WL 345581 (9th Cir. 2021), which held that the jurisdiction of the immigration court vests upon the filing of the Notice to Appear (NTA), even one that does not at the time inform the alien of the time, date, and location of the hearing, and held that the district court erred in dismissing the indictment. The panel also held that defendant failed to show that he can satisfy the section 1326(d) requirements for collaterally attacking the underlying removal order based simply on the NTA's lack of date and time information, standing alone. Therefore, he is foreclosed from making that argument on remand. The panel explained that defendant may collaterally attack the underlying order on remand on other grounds, but only if he can meet all the requirements of section1326(d). Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Gonzalez-Valencia" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment finding Defendants Woodberry and Johnson guilty of Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. 1951(a) and (b)(1); separately finding Johnson guilty of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(ii); convicting Woodberry of aiding and abetting Johnson's firearm possession offense; and finding that Johnson used a short-barreled rifle during the robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(B)(i), which resulted in both defendants having their mandatory minimum sentences increased.The panel held that the district court did not err in instructing the jury that the "market for marijuana, including its intrastate aspects, is commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction," or that the "commerce" element of Hobbs Act robbery could be established if the robbery "could" affect commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction. The panel also held that the short-barreled element in section 924(c)(1)(B)(i) does not contain a separate mens rea requirement. View "United States v. Woodberry" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, based on failure to state a claim, of plaintiff's action seeking to remedy defendants' failure to count his vote in the 2016 November General Election. At issue is whether Arizona residents who registered to vote on October 11, 2016, registered to vote in time to be eligible to vote in the 2016 November General Election. The Arizona law in effect in 2016 set the voter registration deadline for the 2016 November Election on Monday, October 10, 2016. However, because Monday, October 10, 2016 was also Columbus Day, a state and federal holiday, certain methods of voter registration were not available on that day. In this case, plaintiff and roughly 2,000 others registered to vote on Tuesday, October 11, 2016.The panel held that, under Arizona law in effect in 2016, an Arizona resident who registered to vote on October 11, 2016 did not register in time to be eligible to vote in the 2016 November Election. The panel also held that the October 10, 2016 voter registration deadline did not violate the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). Accordingly, the panel need not reach the remaining two questions regarding the enforceability of the NVRA under section 1983 and the factual predicate necessary to state a cognizable money damages claim for deprivation of an individual's right to vote. Finally, the panel noted that this rigid result is not likely to reoccur under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 16-120, as amended. View "Isabel v. Reagan" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The panel held that petitioner's proposed social group comprised of "minor Christian males who oppose gang membership" is not cognizable. The panel also held that petitioner failed to establish the requisite nexus between any harm and his membership in the Santos-Ponce family, or that he would more likely than not be tortured by the Honduran government or with government acquiescence. Finally, the panel held that substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that petitioner is not eligible for CAT protection where there is no claim or evidence that petitioner was harmed, much less tortured in the past by any government officials, or anyone acting under the acquiescence of the government. View "Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied in part and granted in part a petition for review of the BIA's denial of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The panel held that the Board correctly concluded that petitioner's proposed social group of "Mexican wealthy business owners" was not cognizable because it lacked social distinction, particularity, or an immutable characteristic. Even if petitioner's proposed group were cognizable, the panel concluded that he would still not be entitled to relief. In this case, substantial evidence supports the IJ's decision that petitioner did not establish a nexus between the feared harm and his alleged membership in the proposed group.In regard to the CAT claim, the panel held that the Board erred in finding that petitioner had not proven he had been "subjected to any harm by Mexican officials." Even if the judicial officers were not in uniform and did not act in their official capacity, the panel concluded that petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated that he was the victim of an official perpetration of violence. The panel remanded with instructions for the Board to consider whether the attack by the judicial police officers qualifies as torture and whether petitioner has established that it was more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to Mexico. View "Macedo Templos v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant in an action brought by plaintiffs, on behalf of two certified classes of employees, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), alleging that their weekly per diem benefits were improperly excluded from their regular rate of pay and thereby decreasing their wage rate for overtime hours.The panel held that the record establishes that the contested benefits functioned as compensation for work rather than as reimbursement for expenses incurred, and that the per diem benefits were thus improperly excluded from plaintiffs' regular rate of pay for purposes of calculating overtime pay. The panel remanded for the district court to enter partial summary judgment in plaintiffs' favor as to whether the per diem payments to class member employees should be considered part of the employees' rate of pay and to conduct further proceedings. View "Clarke v. AMN Services, LLC" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district courts' grants of summary judgment in favor of the HOA in an action brought by the Bank, seeking to set aside the HOA's foreclosure sale of real property in Nevada. The district court held that, because the mortgage savings clause in the applicable covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) did not affect the sale, the sale could not be set aside. Therefore, title vested with SFR Investments, the purchaser at the HOA sale.The panel predicted that the Nevada Supreme Court would adhere to its unpublished decisions, and hold that a mortgage-savings clause, by itself, did not constitute unfairness that affects a sale. The panel held that the clause was void as a matter of Nevada law, because it plainly conflicted with Nev. Rev. Stat. 116.3116(2), which required liens for unpaid assessments to have superpriority status, and Nev. Rev. Stat. 116.1104, which provided that the priorities cannot be modified by agreement. The panel also held that the mortgage-savings clause was void under the terms of the CC&Rs themselves. The panel explained that the Bank did not introduce any evidence whatsoever in this case that the mortgage-savings clause affected this sale. The panel rejected the Bank's remaining arguments and concluded that no unfairness arose from the HOA's processing of payments. Finally, the notice at issue did not violate due process. View "U.S. Bank, N.A. v. White Horse Estates Homeowners Ass'n" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of individual employees of the Clark County DFS and the County in an action brought by plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law, alleging that defendants wrongfully removed plaintiffs' infant daughter, M.M., from plaintiffs' home, wrongfully removed M.M. from her foster mother's home, and then placed her in a neglectful foster home that caused her death.The panel held that plaintiffs waived several appellate arguments where these arguments were either not raised before the district court, are inconsistent with positions employed there, or are presented without argument. The panel also held that each of plaintiffs' asserted factual disputes are either resolved by the record or are insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact on its claims. In this case, plaintiffs' third claim of failure to train has been waived whereas its fifth claim of state-law negligence was effectively dismissed. Furthermore, plaintiffs fail to present a genuine dispute that M.M. was wrongfully removed from their home or that defendants acted with deliberate indifference. Finally, the panel held that the district court properly decided the question of causation for the state negligence claim as a matter of law rather than a matter of fact, and that plaintiffs waived their wrongful death claim. View "Momox-Caselis v. Donohue" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the DHS's order reinstating petitioner's prior order of removal. Petitioner, a Canadian citizen, was deported from the United States in the summer of 1990 under a final order of deportation. 26 years later, he was taken into custody by ICE after an arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol. DHS then reinstated his prior deportation order under section 241(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.The panel held that a noncitizen has not "reentered the United States illegally" within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5) based solely on the fact of inadmissibility at the time of reentry. In this case, DHS failed to apply the correct legal standard under section 1231(a)(5) for entering a reinstatement order. The panel explained that petitioner's case is fundamentally different from circuit precedent, where the panel allowed reinstatement of prior deportation orders for noncitizens who had reentered the United States through fraud. The panel agreed with the government's tacit admission that it is not entitled to deference, and the panel did not give Chevron deference to agency decisions made without "a lawmaking pretense in mind," such as those made with little or no procedure and that "stop short of [binding] third parties." The panel noted that many inadmissible noncitizens who enter or reenter the United States do so without violating sections 1325 or 1326, for these sections do not punish entries or reentries solely on the ground of a noncitizen's inadmissibility. Furthermore, the panel's conclusion was reinforced by the INA's provisions governing relief from removal, the severe practical difficulties of basing reinstatement solely on inadmissibility at the time of reentry, and the DHS regulation governing reinstatement. View "Tomczyk v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law