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

The case revolves around a clerical error by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that resulted in a taxpayer, Jeffrey Page, receiving a tax refund check significantly larger than he was entitled to. Page returned only a portion of the excess refund, prompting the United States government to sue under 26 U.S.C. § 7405 to recover the outstanding balance. Page did not respond to the lawsuit, leading the government to move for default judgment. However, the district court denied the motion and dismissed the complaint as untimely, arguing that the two-year limitations period began when Page received the refund check.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court's interpretation of when the two-year limitations period began. The appellate court held that the limitations period to sue to recover an erroneous refund starts on the date the erroneous refund check clears the Federal Reserve and payment to the taxpayer is authorized by the Treasury. As Page's refund check cleared less than two years before the government sued, the appellate court held that the complaint was timely and that the district court erred by dismissing it. The appellate court also noted that the district court had improperly shifted the burden to the government to prove at the pleading stage that its claim against Page was timely. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Page" on Justia Law

Christopher Grimes, a California state inmate, was convicted of second-degree murder. The conviction was based, in part, on statements Grimes made to an undercover jailhouse informant after he had invoked his Fifth Amendment right to counsel. Grimes appealed his conviction, arguing that his statements to the informant should have been suppressed because they were obtained in violation of his right to counsel.The California Court of Appeal affirmed Grimes' conviction. It held that the statements were admissible because law enforcement is not required to give Miranda warnings to a suspect before placing them in a jail cell with an undercover informant. This decision was based on the U.S. Supreme Court case Illinois v. Perkins, which held that the policy underlying Miranda is not implicated when a suspect makes statements to an individual they believe is a fellow inmate. Grimes' petition for review before the California Supreme Court was denied without comment.Grimes then filed a federal habeas petition, arguing that the California Court of Appeal misapplied Edwards v. Arizona, which held that law enforcement must cease custodial interrogation when a suspect invokes their right to counsel unless they subsequently waive that right. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Grimes' habeas petition. The court held that because the Supreme Court has never squarely addressed whether the Fifth Amendment precludes an undercover jailhouse informant posing as an inmate to question an incarcerated suspect who has previously invoked his right to counsel, the California Court of Appeal’s decision is not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as defined by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. View "Grimes v. Phillips" on Justia Law

The case involves Gerson Eduardo Alfaro Manzano, a native and citizen of El Salvador, who fled to the United States after being persecuted for his Jehovah's Witness faith. In El Salvador, Alfaro Manzano preached to the youth of his hometown to dissuade them from joining gangs. This led to him being attacked, threatened, and nearly killed by gang members. He sought asylum in the United States, arguing that his faith would be a central reason for his persecution in El Salvador.The immigration judge (IJ) granted Alfaro Manzano withholding of removal but denied asylum, finding that his religion would be "a reason" for his persecution but not "one central reason" sufficient for asylum eligibility. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, concluding that the gang's desire to increase its wealth and power was the primary reason for targeting Alfaro Manzano, while religion provided only an incidental or subordinate reason.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the lower courts' decisions. The court held that the record compelled the conclusion that Alfaro Manzano's faith would be "one central reason" for his persecution. The court clarified that a motive can be a central reason if it, standing alone, would lead the persecutors to harm the individual. The court found that even in the absence of the gang's desire to extort him, Alfaro Manzano's religion, standing alone, would lead the persecutors to harm him. The court remanded the case for the Attorney General to exercise his discretion in determining whether to grant Alfaro Manzano asylum. View "MANZANO V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

The case involves a putative class action of approximately 2,000 payees who received structured settlement annuities to resolve personal injury claims. The plaintiffs, Renaldo White and Randolph Nadeau, alleged that defendants Symetra Life Insurance Company and Symetra Assigned Benefits Service Company wrongfully induced them to cash out their annuities in individualized “factoring” arrangements, whereby they gave up their rights to periodic payments in return for discounted lump sums.The district court certified two nationwide classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The first class consisted of all persons who were annuitants of a structured settlement annuity (SSA) issued by Symetra and who subsequently sold to a Symetra affiliate the right to receive payments from that SSA in a factoring transaction. The second class was a subclass of the first, consisting of all members of the class whose contract defining the annuity at issue included language explicitly stating that the annuitants lack the power to transfer their future SSA payments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s certification of the two nationwide classes. The court held that individual issues of causation will predominate over common ones when evaluating whether defendants’ acts and omissions caused the plaintiffs to enter factoring transactions and incur their alleged injuries. The court also held that the district court erred in certifying the nationwide subclass of plaintiffs whose original settlement agreements with their personal injury tortfeasors contained structured settlement annuity (SSA) anti-assignment provisions. The record indicates that the annuitants hail from a wide array of different states, and some of the settlement agreements have choice of law provisions denoting the law of a state other than the location where the contract was executed. The apparent variations in state law on the enforceability of anti-assignment provisions in SSAs and the need to apply multiple state laws to the subclass raised a substantial question of whether individual issues predominate and how the matter can be fairly managed as a class action. View "WHITE V. SYMETRA ASSIGNED BENEFITS SERVICE COMPANY" on Justia Law

A group of firefighters from the City of Spokane filed a lawsuit against the city and state officials, alleging that a COVID-19 vaccination mandate violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The mandate, issued by Washington Governor Jay Inslee, required all state agency workers to be fully vaccinated, but the firefighters claimed that their requests for religious exemptions were denied. They were subsequently terminated for failing to get vaccinated. The firefighters also alleged that the city used firefighters from neighboring departments, who were granted religious exemptions by their respective departments, to fill the gaps left by their termination.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted judgment on the pleadings to the city and state defendants, dismissing the firefighters' claims. The court held that the city's vaccination requirement survived both strict scrutiny and rational basis review, and that accommodating unvaccinated firefighters would impose an undue hardship.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the firefighters' claims for retrospective and prospective relief were not moot, despite the rescission of the Proclamation. The court found that the city's implementation of the vaccination policy was not generally applicable, as it exempted certain firefighters based on a secular criterion while holding firefighters who objected to vaccination on religious grounds to a higher standard. The court also held that the city's application of the Proclamation was not narrowly tailored to advance the government's compelling interest in stemming the spread of COVID-19. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Bacon v. Woodward" on Justia Law

The case involves Jeremy and Kristy Morris, who sued the West Hayden Estates First Addition Homeowners Association (HOA) under the Fair Housing Act. The Morrises alleged that the HOA discriminated against them based on religion by attempting to prevent them from conducting a Christmas program. The jury ruled in favor of the Morrises, awarding them compensatory and punitive damages. However, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law to the HOA, alternatively granted a new trial, and issued a permanent injunction against future productions of the Christmas program that violate the HOA’s covenants, conditions, restrictions, and easements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the district court properly granted judgment as a matter of law to the HOA as to the Morrises’ disparate treatment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b) because they did not show that they were adversely affected by the HOA’s actions. However, the court reversed the district court's judgment as a matter of law on the Morrises’ claim that the HOA interfered with their right to purchase and enjoy their home free from discrimination, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 3617. The court affirmed the district court’s grant of a new trial to the HOA as to the § 3617 claim and vacated the district court’s grant of an injunction to the HOA. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "MORRIS V. WEST HAYDEN ESTATES FIRST ADDITION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC." on Justia Law

The case involves Leopoldo Rivera-Valdes, a Mexican citizen who unlawfully entered the United States in 1992. In 1994, Rivera-Valdes failed to appear at his deportation hearing and was ordered deported in absentia. He was finally deported in 2006 after being apprehended. After being deported, Rivera-Valdes again unlawfully entered the United States. In 2019, he was charged with illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He challenged the indictment, alleging that his 1994 in absentia deportation order violated due process. The district court denied the motion, and Rivera-Valdes entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving the right to appeal the constitutional challenge to his deportation.The district court denied Rivera-Valdes's motion to dismiss the indictment, ruling that his 1994 in absentia deportation order did not violate due process. Rivera-Valdes had argued that immigration authorities violated his due process rights by ordering him deported in absentia despite the notice of the deportation hearing being returned as undeliverable or unclaimed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the deportation in absentia did not violate due process. The court found that whether Rivera-Valdes actually received the notice, the government followed its statutory obligations and reasonably attempted to inform him of the hearing by mailing notice to his last (and only) provided address. The court rejected Rivera-Valdes's argument that additional steps to notify him of his deportation hearing were required under Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006). The court concluded that even if Jones's "additional reasonable steps" standard did supersede the constitutional adequacy of notice as recognized in this court’s cases, the government still satisfied due process because no additional reasonable steps existed that were practicable for it to take. View "USA V. RIVERA-VALDES" on Justia Law

The petitioner, Tania Lizeth Gonzalez-Lara, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision denying her motion to remand to apply for voluntary departure and dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Gonzalez-Lara, a native of El Salvador, entered the United States in December 2017. She claimed persecution on account of her membership in particular social groups, including family members of Salvadoran police officers and Salvadoran women. The IJ found Gonzalez-Lara credible but denied her applications, finding that she had not suffered harm that rose to the level of past persecution and that her fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable.The BIA affirmed the IJ's decision and denied Gonzalez-Lara's motion to remand to apply for voluntary departure. The BIA reasoned that Gonzalez-Lara did not show a well-founded fear of future persecution because she did not present evidence that the gangs have shown interest in her, her former partner, or family since she left El Salvador in 2017. The BIA also found that Gonzalez-Lara had waived the IJ’s denial of her CAT claim because she did not raise any specific argument on appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review. The court found that the BIA erred in denying the motion to remand on the basis that Gonzalez-Lara had not previously applied for voluntary departure. However, the court concluded that the BIA’s error was harmless because Gonzalez-Lara did not allege facts to satisfy all elements of voluntary departure, and the record did not independently establish her prima facie eligibility. The court also found that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s finding that Gonzalez-Lara’s fear of harm was too speculative to support her claim for relief. View "GONZALEZ-LARA V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

The case involves Clayton Zellmer, who sued Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook) for alleged violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). Zellmer, who never used Facebook, claimed that the company violated BIPA when it created a "face signature" from photos of him uploaded by his friends and failed to publish a written policy outlining its retention schedule for collected biometric data.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Meta on Zellmer's claim under Section 15(b) of BIPA. The court reasoned that it would be practically impossible for Meta to comply with BIPA if it had to obtain consent from everyone whose photo was uploaded to Facebook before it could use its Tag Suggestions feature. The court also dismissed Zellmer's claim under Section 15(a) of BIPA for lack of standing, holding that Zellmer did not suffer a particularized injury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions but on different grounds. The appellate court rejected the district court's reasoning for granting summary judgment, stating that BIPA's plain text applies to everyone whose biometric identifiers or information is held by Facebook. However, the court concluded that there was no material dispute of fact as to whether Meta violated BIPA's plain terms. The court found that face signatures, which are created from uploaded photos, cannot identify and therefore are not biometric identifiers or information as defined by BIPA. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Zellmer's claim under Section 15(a) of BIPA for lack of standing, agreeing with the district court that Zellmer did not suffer a particularized injury. View "ZELLMER V. META PLATFORMS, INC." on Justia Law

The case involves Nicholas DeFries, a former conductor for Union Pacific Railroad Company, who was removed from his duties after failing color-vision testing. Prior to DeFries' removal, a class action lawsuit had been filed against Union Pacific by a group of employees, alleging that the company's fitness-for-duty program violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). DeFries qualified as a member of this class, but the class was later narrowed and then decertified by the Eighth Circuit. DeFries subsequently filed an individual lawsuit in the District of Oregon, raising claims similar to those in the class action.The District of Oregon concluded that the commencement of the class action had tolled the statute of limitations under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, but that the tolling ended when the class definition was voluntarily narrowed, making DeFries's claim untimely. DeFries appealed this decision.The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court found ambiguity in whether the definition of the certified class included color-vision plaintiffs like DeFries. The court concluded that this ambiguity should be resolved in favor of allowing DeFries to rely on American Pipe tolling. Therefore, DeFries was entitled to tolling as a member of the class until the Eighth Circuit issued the mandate for its decision reversing class certification, making his claim timely. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "DeFries v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law