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

The defendants immigrated to the U.S. from Somalia years ago and lived in Southern California. They were convicted of sending or conspiring to send, $10,900 to Somalia to support a foreign terrorist organization, 18 U.S.C. 2339, and money laundering.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions. The government may have violated the Fourth Amendment and did violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. 1861, when it collected the telephony metadata of millions of Americans, including at least one of the defendants, but suppression was not warranted in this case because the metadata collection did not taint the evidence introduced at trial. The court’s review of the classified record confirmed that the metadata did not and was not necessary to support the probable cause showing for the FISA warrant application. The Fourth Amendment requires notice to a criminal defendant when the prosecution intends to enter into evidence or otherwise use or disclose information obtained or derived from surveillance of that defendant conducted pursuant to the government’s foreign intelligence authorities, but in this case, any lack of notice did not prejudice the defendants. Evidentiary rulings challenged by the defendants did not, individually or cumulatively, impermissibly prejudice the defense and sufficient evidence supported the convictions. View "United States v. Moalin" on Justia Law

During negotiations for a new tribal-state compact between the Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians and California, Pauma sought authorization to offer on-track horse racing and wagering and an expanded set of lottery games. The parties met and corresponded. In 2015, Pauma triggered the 1999 Compact’s dispute resolution process. In January 2016, the state confirmed its agreement to renegotiate the 1999 Compact in full and told Pauma that it “look[ed] forward” to receiving a draft compact from Pauma with Pauma’s “plans for on-track betting.” Rather than propose a draft compact or disclose any information about the on-track facility, Pauma notified the state that it wanted to separately negotiate each item of the compact and proposed modifications to the 1999 Compact’s lottery game language. California rejected Pauma’s piecemeal negotiation approach, rejected Pauma’s lottery game language, and advised that it would send a “complete draft compact to guide our future discussions.” The subsequent 140-page draft addressed a broad array of topics. Pauma never responded but filed suit.The district court held that California satisfied its obligation to negotiate in good faith under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2701. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The state agreed to negotiate for the new types of class III gaming that Pauma sought authorization to offer, actively engaged in the negotiations, and remained willing to continue the negotiations when Pauma filed the litigation. View "Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians v. California" on Justia Law

Employees brought a wage-and-hour class action under California law for time spent waiting for and undergoing exit searches. In 2017, the Ninth Circuit certified a question to the Supreme Court of California, which concluded that time spent on the employer’s premises waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of packages, bags, or personal technology devices voluntarily brought to work purely for personal convenience by employees is compensable as “hours worked” within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 7. The Ninth Circuit then reversed summary judgment in favor of the employer and directed the district court to enter judgment for the employees and determine the remedy to be afforded to individual class members. View "Frlekin v. Apple, Inc." on Justia Law

Jaimes-Cardenas, a citizen of Mexico, first entered the U.S. without inspection in 2008, He married a U.S. citizen, Flora, who was addicted to methamphetamines. Flora was violent and abusive. One incident led to Jaimes-Cardenas’s arrest, after which he voluntarily returned to Mexico. Months later, he returned to the U.S. Flora was pregnant with their first child. Flora became increasingly abusive and started selling drugs. She left Jaimes-Cardenas and their children, who were placed in foster care. The police found methamphetamine in Jaimes-Cardenas's apartment. Despite Flora’s statement that the methamphetamine was hers, police charged Jaimes-Cardenas with possession, manufacture, and delivery of methamphetamine, and with hindering prosecution for his failure to report Flora. Jaimes-Cardenas’s counsel informed him that he would likely face ICE detention and removal if he fought the case. He pleaded to possession of methamphetamine.DHS charged him as inadmissible for entering without inspection, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), and having been convicted of a law or regulation related to a controlled substance offense, section 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). Jaimes-Cardenas applied for special cancellation of removal for victims of domestic violence 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(2). The BIA and the Ninth Circuit upheld the IJ's determination that the authority provided for the domestic violence waiver, even if granted, does not waive the section 1182](a)(2) controlled substance offense but only applies to crimes of domestic violence and stalking or violations of a domestic violence protective order. View "Jaimes-Cardenas v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit previously reversed, in part, bankruptcy appellate panel decisions. The court subsequently denied the debtors’ applications, as prevailing parties, for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d). The EAJA did not authorize attorney fees because a bankruptcy court does not fall within the EAJA’s definition of “United States,” and uncontested Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases are not “civil actions brought by or against the United States.” The EAJA is a limited waiver of the government’s sovereign immunity; it must be strictly construed in favor of maintaining immunity not specifically and clearly waived. View "In re: Sisk" on Justia Law

Jordan worked for SSA as a longshoreman and operated a small landscaping business. In 2014, the truck Jordan was driving was dropped by a crane. He suffered extensive damage to his lower back. After treatment by medication and physical therapy, Jordan had spinal fusion surgery. Before the 2018 surgery. Jordan sought benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 901–50. SSA agreed that Jordan was totally disabled immediately following the accident and again as he recovered from surgery. Surveillance videos, recorded in 2015-2016, showed Jordan engaging in physical activities and attending events where he apparently sat and stood for long periods without difficulty. Jordan testified, “There’s nothing I can’t do, but it all either is painful, elevates the pain, or I can’t do it for the amount of time that would be considered a job.” Jordan continued his landscaping but testified that his capacity was limited. Dr. Reynolds corroborated Jordan’s complaints of pain and opined that Jordan was totally disabled from work as a longshoreman.The Ninth Circuit remanded the denial of benefits. Credible complaints of severe, persistent, and prolonged pain, arising out of an injury, can establish a prima facie case of disability, even if the claimant can literally perform his past work. The claimant need not experience excruciating pain to be considered disabled. The ALJ apparently erroneously believed Jordan had to establish that it was literally impossible for him to do his past work. View "Jordan v. SSA Terminals, LLC" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated defendant's convictions and sentence for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance and eight counts of distribution of a controlled substance, remanding for a new trial. In light of the unique facts of this case, the panel held that the district court erred in dismissing a juror, a former criminal defense lawyer, hours into jury deliberations following a lengthy criminal trial. The panel explained that the district court's determination that the juror harbored "malice toward the judicial process" is not supported and cannot provide the basis for the juror's dismissal. While the district court also cited the juror's alleged refusal to deliberate, based on the record in this case the panel is firmly convinced there was a reasonable possibility that the juror's dismissal stemmed from her views on the strength of the government's prosecution.The panel based its decision on the specific circumstances of this case, which are uncommon. Here, the district court decided to strike the juror after receiving a complaint from other jurors and without clarifying the juror's alleged confusion about a jury instruction that applied to all charges. The district court also removed the juror without giving the original jury any further instructions or allowing it any further opportunity to deliberate. View "United States v. Litwin" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of an information charging defendant with illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326 where defendant was previously removed because of an "aggravated felony" conviction—possession for sale of methamphetamine in violation of California Health & Safety Code 11378. In this case, the district court held an evidentiary hearing, heard the testimony of expert witnesses, and concluded that geometric isomers of methamphetamine do not chemically exist.The panel held that the district court's factual finding that geometric isomers of methamphetamine do not exist, under clear error review, finds overwhelming support in the record. The panel rejected defendant's contention that the California statute is overbroad because of its facial inclusion of "geometrical" isomers of methamphetamine. In light of Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007), and based on the evidentiary record before it, the panel held that there is simply no "realistic probability"—nor even a theoretical one—of defendant facing criminal liability under California law for the possession of geometric isomers of methamphetamine. View "United States v. Rodriguez-Gamboa" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions and sentence for wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and securities fraud. Defendant, who served as Chief Financial Officer of Autonomy Corporation, a U.K. technology company that Hewlett-Packard acquired in 2011, and others fraudulently inflated revenue through a series of elaborate accounting schemes.The Ninth Circuit held that defendant's wire fraud convictions did not involve an impermissible extraterritorial application of United States law to foreign conduct because the "focus" of the wire fraud statute is the use of the wires in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, and defendant used domestic wires to perpetrate his fraud. The panel also held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction for securities fraud because a reasonable jury could conclude that defendant's approval of false and misleading financial information in an HP press release distributed to the investing public reflected a fraudulent scheme "in connection with" U.S. securities. The panel concurrently filed a memorandum disposition holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certain evidentiary rulings or err in ordering money forfeiture. View "United States v. Hussain" on Justia Law

Global filed suit against Bachosa in district court after Bachosa fell behind on its payments on two contracts. The district court dismissed Global's claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied as moot Bachosa's motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.The Ninth Circuit held that the district court had personal jurisdiction over both the corporate and individual defendants and that litigation in the Eastern District of California would not result in disproportionate inconvenience. In this case, Bachosa maintained numerous contacts with California during the course of its years-long business relationship with Global. Furthermore, those contacts gave rise to this dispute, and it was reasonable for Bachosa to expect that it would be haled into court in California to fulfill its obligations and to account for harm it foreseeably caused there. In regard to the individual defendants, the district court had specific personal jurisdiction over them based on Global's claims in its initial complaint. Finally, the panel exercised its discretion to reach the issue of dismissal based on forum non conveniens, and held that the balance of private and public interest factors did not favor dismissal. Moreover, California law will likely govern key issues and any burdens on the foreign defendant are insufficient to overcome the presumption in favor of Global's choice of its home forum. Therefore, the panel reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions to deny the forum non conveniens motion on the merits. View "Global Commodities Trading Group, Inc. v. Beneficio De Arroz Choloma, S.A." on Justia Law