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

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to police officers in an action brought by plaintiff, seeking damages incurred during a SWAT team search of her house and alleging claims for unreasonable search, unreasonable seizure, and conversion.The panel assumed, without deciding, that defendants violated plaintiffs' rights and held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because those rights were not clearly established at the time. Given the factors that suggested voluntary consent, the panel held that a lack of consent was not clearly established and that a lack of consent was not so obvious that the requirement of similar precedent can be overcome. Furthermore, given that defendants thought they had permission to enter plaintiff's house to apprehend a dangerous, potentially armed, and suicidal felon barricaded inside, it was not obvious, in the absence of a controlling precedent, that defendants exceeded the scope of plaintiff's consent by causing the tear gas canisters to enter the house in an attempt to flush the felon out into the open. View "West v. City of Caldwell" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the Commission's enforcement action against Monex for alleged fraud in precious metals sales.The panel held that the actual delivery exception to the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) was an affirmative defense on which the commodities trader bears the burden of proof. Furthermore, "actual deliver" unambiguously requires the transfer of some degree of possession or control. Furthermore, it was possible for this exception to be satisfied when the commodity sits in a third-party depository, but not when, as here, metals are in the broker's chosen depository, never exchange hands, and are subject to the broker's exclusive control, and customers have no substantial, non-contingent interests. Therefore, because this affirmative defense did not, on the face of the complaint bar the Commission from relief on Counts I, II, and IV, the district court erred in dismissing those claims.The panel also held that, by its terms, section 6(c)(1) of the CEA applies broadly to commodities in interstate commerce, and the Commission may sue for fraudulently deceptive activity, regardless of whether it was also manipulative. Furthermore, when someone violates section 6(c)(1), the Commission can bring an enforcement action. The panel accepted as true the Commission's well-pleaded complaint and held that its claims were plausible, remanding for further proceedings. View "U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Monex Credit Co." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for PAR in an action brought by plaintiff, a profoundly deaf individual who is a licensed real estate salesperson, under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Arizonans with Disabilities Act (AzADA). Plaintiff alleged that PAR failed to comply with federal and state laws when it denied plaintiff's requests for an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter at continuing education courses.The panel held that PAR was not entitled to summary judgment because engaging in dialogue with plaintiff did not satisfy its obligations under the ADA, and there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether PAR offered an auxiliary aid or service that would provide effective communication to plaintiff. The panel remanded for the district court to consider in the first instance whether providing an ASL interpreter would result in an undue burden. View "Tauscher v. Phoenix Board of Relators, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed defendant's conviction for eluding examination or inspection by immigration officers in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1325(a)(2). The panel held that an alien who crosses into the country at a non-designated time or place is not guilty under section 1325(a)(2). Instead, to convict a defendant under section 1325(a)(2), the government must prove that the alien's criminal conduct occurred at a time and place designated for "examination or inspection by immigration officers." In this case, the government conceded that defendant crossed into the United States far from a port of entry and thus failed to make such a showing. View "United States v. Corrales-Vazquez" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Experian in an action brought by plaintiff under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, alleging claims that arose out of a series of letters a credit repair organization sent to Experian on plaintiff's behalf.The panel held that 15 U.S.C. 1681i requires consumer reporting agencies to reinvestigate disputed items in a consumer's credit file if the consumer notifies the agency of the dispute "directly." In this case, plaintiff played no part in drafting, finalizing, or sending the letters Go Clean Credit sent to Experian on his behalf, and thus those letters did not come directly from him. Therefore, Experian was not required to initiate a reinvestigation. View "Warner v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc." on Justia Law

The Koala brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the University student government's passage of the Media Act, which eliminated registered student organization (RSO) funding for all print media, violated its First Amendment rights.The Ninth Circuit held that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar The Koala's claims and the relief The Koala sought was consistent with the Ex parte Young doctrine. The panel saw no reason why the rule articulated in the Free Speech cases cited -- that the government may not withhold benefits for a censorious purpose -- should not apply when the state singles out and burdens the press by revoking a subsidy, particularly where, as here, the record includes unusually compelling allegations that the government acted with discriminatory intent. Therefore, the second amended complaint's (SAC) Free Press Clause claim was sufficient to survive defendants' motion to dismiss because it alleged that the Media Act was passed for the express purpose of silencing a newspaper, and that defendants singled out The Koala for a disparate financial burden.The panel also held that the allegations in the SAC, and in the documents incorporated by reference into the SAC, supported the conclusion that defendants created a limited public forum encompassing all student activity funding, not one constrained to only media funds. Furthermore, the complaint sufficiently alleged a claim for First Amendment retaliation where The Koala's article was clearly protected speech, the Media Act chilled The Koala's speech, and The Koala adequately alleged a nexus between its speech and the Associated Students' alleged retaliatory conduct. Accordingly, the panel reversed in part and vacated in part. View "The Koala v. Khosla" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of an Arizona state prisoner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas relief, challenging his conviction for four counts of first degree murder and his capital sentence. The panel held that the record failed to establish that plaintiff's pre-trial counsel were incompetent or provided constitutionally deficient representation. Therefore, petitioner's challenges to his waiver of counsel and guilty pleas, as both claims were premised on constitutionally inadequate representation, failed.The panel also held that there was no reasonable probability that state post-conviction proceedings would have turned out differently if petitioner had advanced a pre-trial ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and the panel could not excuse the procedural default of that claim. Furthermore, the state court reasonably concluded that sentencing counsel was not ineffective, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing on that claim. Finally, the panel held that any causal nexus during petitioner's sentencing was harmless. View "Djerf v. Ryan" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying Aegis' motion to compel arbitration in a class action alleging that Aegis engaged in a scheme to defraud seniors. Applying the federal law standard for waiver, the panel affirmed and held that the district court did not err in concluding that Aegis waived its right to arbitrate. In this case, Aegis knew of its right to compel arbitration, but made an intentional decision not to compel arbitration in order to take advantage of the judicial forum. Furthermore, plaintiffs incurred costs as a direct result. View "Newirth v. Aegis Senior Communities, LLC" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of a 28 U.S.C. 1782 application for discovery of evidence for use in a foreign tribunal. The panel held that the factual circumstances surrounding plaintiff's application have changed dramatically during the pendency of this appeal. Therefore, the panel vacated and remanded to the district court to consider, in the first instance, whether the statutory requirements for discovery under section 1782 remain satisfied and whether, as a matter of the district court’s discretion, discovery remains appropriate. View "Khrapunov v. Prosyankin" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of a diversity action based on a forum selection clause in the parties' Asset Purchase Agreement. The panel applied its decision in Yei A. Sun v. Advanced China Healthcare, Inc., 901 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2018), which was decided after the district court ruled in this case, and held that the forum-selection clause here was unenforceable because it contravened the strong public policy declared by Idaho Code 29-110(1). Therefore, the panel remanded so the district court could apply a traditional forum non conveniens balancing analysis. View "Gemini Technologies, Inc. v. Smith & Wesson Corp." on Justia Law