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

The Ninth Circuit filed: (1) an order amending its opinion, denying a petition for panel rehearing, and denying on behalf of the court a petition for rehearing en banc; and (2) an amended opinion reversing the district court's dismissal for lack of standing of a tribal health organization's action seeking declaratory relief regarding alleged violations of a federal law concerning the provision of health services to Alaska Natives.The panel concluded that SCF alleges an injury in fact in two distinct ways: first, that ANTHC infringed SCF's governance and participation rights under Section 325 of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1998 by delegating the full authority of the fifteen-member Board to the five-person Executive Committee; and second, that ANTHC erected informational barriers in the Code of Conduct and Disclosure Policy that deprived SCF of its ability to exercise effectively its governance and participation rights. View "Southcentral Foundation v. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants on a copyright infringement claim and affirmed the district court's dismissal and grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on a trademark claim concerning the book "Oh, the Places You'll Boldly Go!," (the mash-up) a Dr. Seuss and Star Trek mash-up.The panel held that the mash-up does not make fair use of "Oh, the Places You'll Go!" (the original work). The panel explained that the purpose and character of the mash-up; the nature of the original work; the amount and substantiality of the original work; and the potential market for or value of Seuss, all weigh against fair use. The panel concluded that the bottom line is that ComicMix created, without seeking permission or a license, a non-transformative commercial work that targets and usurps the original work's potential market, and ComicMix cannot sustain a fair use defense. The panel also held that Seuss does not have a cognizable trademark infringement claim against ComicMix because the Lanham Act did not apply under the Rogers test. In this case, the allegedly valid trademarks in the title, the typeface, and the style of the original work were relevant to achieving the mash-up's artistic purpose, and the use of the claimed original work trademarks was not explicitly misleading. View "Dr. Seuss Enterprises, LP v. ComicMix LLC" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of Beverly Oaks' claim for benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Beverly Oaks contends that Blue Cross waived or is equitably estopped from raising an anti-assignment provision as a reason for denying a benefits claim for the first time in litigation.The panel held, under Spinedex Physical Therapy USA Inc. v. United Healthcare of Ariz., Inc., 770 F.3d 1282, 1296 (9th Cir. 2014), that Beverly Oaks plausibly alleged that Blue Cross waived the anti-assignment provisions in the Teamsters, Williams Lea, and Woodward Plans. Therefore, Blue Cross cannot raise the anti-assignment provision for the first time in litigation when Blue Cross held that provision in reserve as a reason to deny benefits. In this case, Blue Cross confirmed that plan benefits were available during pre-surgery conversations, Beverly Oaks submitted the claim form to Blue Cross indicating that it sought to recover benefits via a patient assignment, and Blue Cross either denied in full or underpaid the claims during the administrative claim process without asserting the anti-assignment provision as a ground for denying full reimbursement. The panel also held that Beverly Oaks alleged facts that showed plausibly that Blue Cross made an actionable misrepresentation and was thus equitably estopped from raising the antiassignment provisions as a litigation defense contrary to its prior conduct. View "Beverly Oaks Physicians Surgical Center, LLC v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois" on Justia Law

Innova, wanting to hire a citizen of India with a bachelor’s degree as a computer programmer, sought an H-1B “specialty occupation” visa on his behalf. Under the relevant regulation, Innova had to establish that a “baccalaureate or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum requirement for entry into the particular position.” Although the Department of Labor’s Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH) provides that “[m]ost computer programmers have a bachelor’s degree,” and that a bachelor’s degree is the “[t]ypical level of education that most” computer programmers need, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) denied the application, concluding that “the OOH does not state that at least a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent in a specific specialty is normally the minimum required.”The Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that USCIS’s denial was arbitrary and capricious. USCIS’s suggestion that there is “space” between "typically needed," per the OOH, and "normally required," per the regulation is "so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise." The regulation is not ambiguous and deference to such an implausible interpretation is unwarranted. USCIS misrepresented the OOH and failed to consider key evidence, namely, OOH language providing that a “bachelor’s degree” is the “[t]ypical level of education that most workers need to enter this occupation.” View "Innova Solutions, Inc. v. Baran" on Justia Law

Attia developed architecture technology called “Engineered Architecture” (EA). Google and Attia worked together on “Project Genie” to implement EA. Attia disclosed his EA trade secrets with the understanding that he would be compensated if the program were successful. After Attia executed patent assignments Google filed patent applications relating to the EA trade secrets and showed a prototype of the EA technology to investors. The patents were published in 2012. Google then allegedly excluded Attia from the project and used Attia’s EA technology to create a new venture. Attia sued Google for state law trade secret and contract claims. After Congress enacted the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA), 130 Stat. 376, making criminal misappropriation of a trade secret a predicate act under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), Attia added RICO claims, 18 U.S.C. 1962(c). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the RICO and DTSA claims. The misappropriation of a trade secret before the enactment of the DTSA does not preclude a claim arising from post-enactment misappropriation or continued use of the same trade secret but Attia lacked standing to assert a DTSA claim. Google’s 2012 patent applications placed the information in the public domain and extinguished its trade secret status. The court rejected an argument that Google was equitably estopped from using the publication of its patent applications to defend against the DTSA claim. View "Attia v. Google, LLC" on Justia Law

Calvary Chapel challenges Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak's Directive 021, which prohibits certain gatherings because of the COVID-19 pandemic, as a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Specifically, Calvary Chapel challenges section 11 of the Directive, which imposes a fifty-person cap on indoor in-person services at houses of worship.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the church's request for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the Directive against houses of worship. The panel held that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, --- S. Ct. ----, 2020 WL 6948354 (2020) (per curiam), arguably represented a seismic shift in Free Exercise law, and compels the result in this case. Similar to the pandemic-related restrictions in Roman Catholic Diocese, the panel explained that the Directive treats numerous secular activities and entities significantly better than religious worship services. The panel explained that the Directive, although not identical to New York's, requires attendance limitations that create the same "disparate treatment" of religion. Because disparate treatment of religion triggers strict scrutiny review, the panel reviewed the restrictions in the Directive under strict scrutiny. Exercising its discretion, the panel concluded that, although slowing the spread of COVID-19 is a compelling interest, the Directive is not narrowly tailored to serve that interest. In this case, the Directive—although less restrictive in some respects than the New York regulations reviewed in Roman Catholic Diocese—is not narrowly tailored because, for example, "maximum attendance at a religious service could be tied to the size of the [house of worship]."Therefore, Calvary Chapel has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its Free Exercise claim. Calvary Chapel has also established that the occupancy limitations contained in the Directive—if enforced—will cause irreparable harm, and that the issuance of an injunction is in the public interest. The panel reversed the district court, instructed the district court to employ strict scrutiny review to its analysis of the Directive, and preliminarily enjoined the State from imposing attendance limitations on in-person services in houses of worship that are less favorable than 25% of the fire-code capacity. View "Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Jermain Hardiman's motions under 28 U.S.C. 2255 and 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). A jury found that Hardiman was responsible for distributing at least 28 grams but less than 280 grams of cocaine base. At sentencing, the district court disagreed and found that Hardiman should be held responsible for more than 280 grams of cocaine base. After Hardiman’s direct appeal became final, the panel held in United States v. Pimentel-Lopez, 859 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2016), that a district court is not entitled to make a drug quantity finding in excess of that found by the jury in its special verdict.The panel held that Pimentel-Lopez announced a "new" rule of criminal procedure which is not retroactive under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 310 (1989). Accordingly, Pimentel-Lopez is inapplicable to Hardiman's section 2255 motion, and the district court did not err by denying the motion. The panel also held that the district court did not err at the section 3582(c)(2) proceeding by failing to revisit its drug quantity finding under Pimentel-Lopez and the Sixth Amendment. The panel explained that Hardiman's arguments about Pimentel-Lopez were not affected by Amendment 782 and therefore are outside the scope of the proceeding authorized by section 3582(c)(2). In this case, Hardiman does not otherwise argue that the district court abused its discretion by denying his section 3582(c)(2) motion based on its assessment of the section 3553(a) factors or the circumstances of his case. View "United States v. Hardiman" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied applicant's application for federal habeas corpus relief from his 1997 conviction in Hawaii state court for second-degree murder where applicant seeks retroactive relief based on McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018). The district court construed the motion as an application to file a second or successive (SOS) habeas petition and referred it to the Ninth Circuit.The panel accepted the referral and confirmed that the Rule 60(d) filing is properly construed as an application for authorization to file an SOS habeas petition. The panel held that the application does not make the required prima facie showing pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2). The panel assumed without deciding that McCoy did indeed create a new rule of constitutional law and that it was previously unavailable to applicant, but found that the application was otherwise deficient. In this case, applicant failed to show that McCoy was made retroactive on collateral review by the Supreme Court and that his proposed petition would rely on McCoy's rule. View "Christian v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied applicant's request for authorization to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate his 2015 conviction and sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), based on Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). Rehaif held that a conviction under section 922(g), which prohibits firearm possession for certain categories of individuals, and section 924(a)(2), which imposes penalties on those who "knowingly violate" section 922(g), requires proof that the defendant "knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm."The panel held that applicant failed to make a prima facie showing that Rehaif announced a new constitutional rule as required by section 2244(b)(2)(A), (b)(3)(C). The panel explained that in announcing the scope of "knowingly" in section 924(a)(2), Rehaif announced a statutory, rather than a constitutional, rule. View "Tate v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, individuals living with HIV/AIDS who have employer-sponsored health plans, and who rely on those plans to obtain prescription drugs, filed suit alleging that CVS's program violates the anti-discrimination provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act); denies them benefits to which they are entitled under the Employee Retirement Security Act (ERISA); and violates California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss.The Ninth Circuit held that Section 1557 of the ACA does not create a healthcare-specific anti-discrimination standard that allowed plaintiffs to choose standards from a menu provided by other anti-discrimination statutes. Because plaintiffs claim discrimination on the basis of their disability, to state a claim for a Section 1557 violation, they must allege facts adequate to state a claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Applying the section 504 framework, the panel concluded that plaintiffs adequately alleged that they were denied meaningful access to their prescription drug benefit under their employer-sponsored health plans because the program prevents them from receiving effective treatment for HIV/AIDS. Therefore, plaintiffs have stated a claim for disability discrimination under the ACA.However, plaintiffs have failed to establish a claim of disability discrimination under the ADA, because they have not plausibly alleged that their benefit plan is a place of public accommodation. Finally, the panel upheld the district court's denial of plaintiffs' claims under ERISA and their cause of action under California's Unfair Competition Law. The panel affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Doe v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc." on Justia Law