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

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and award of attorney's fees to Sanctuary Clothing in an action brought by Fiesta, alleging that Sanctuary clothing copied its fabric design. The panel held that the district court did not err in finding that the design had been published prior to registration and therefore Fiesta's registration application contained an inaccuracy. Furthermore, Fiesta included inaccurate information on its application with knowledge that it was inaccurate. Therefore, the inaccuracy in the registration rendered it invalid as to the design under section 411(b)(1)(B) of the Copyright Act. The panel also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to Sanctuary Clothing. View "Gold Value International Textile, Inc. v. Sanctuary Clothing, LLC" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for habeas corpus relief where petitioner challenged an order certifying him as extraditable to the Czech Republic in order for him to serve a sentence for a Czech conviction for attempted extortion.The panel agreed with the Sixth Circuit and nearly every district court that has considered the applicability of 18 U.S.C. 3196 that, in the absence of a treaty authorization or prohibition, the statute confers discretion on the U.S. Department of State to seek extradition of U.S. citizens. The panel also agreed with the district court that petitioner's Czech conviction for attempted extortion qualifies as an extraditable offense and thus the district court properly denied habeas relief. View "United States v. Knotek" on Justia Law

The Libertarian Party challenged a state law requiring up to 1% of voters eligible to participate in its primary to sign a nominating petition for a Libertarian candidate to earn a place on the primary ballot.Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Secretary, the Ninth Circuit applied the balancing framework in Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983), and Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992), and held that the State's signature requirement imposed a minimal burden on the Libertarian Party's right to access the primary ballot and thus required a less exacting scrutiny. The panel held that the primary signature requirements reasonably further Arizona's important regulatory interests and therefore justify a modest burden on the Libertarian Party's right to ballot access. The panel also held that the Arizona law did not infringe upon the Libertarian Party's right to free association and did not violate equal protection. View "Arizona Libertarian Party v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the former police chief, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that defendant, the former city manager, violated the First Amendment by subjecting plaintiff to adverse employment actions in retaliation for his protected speech. Plaintiff was suspicious of the city's accounting and budgeting practices and voiced his concerns to various city council members and others.The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment following a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff. The panel held that plaintiff provided sufficient detail about his speech to establish that it substantially involved a matter of public concern; plaintiff spoke as a private citizen rather than a public employee; the district court properly concluded that plaintiff's retaliation claim could be based in part on defendant's own speech acts, in the form of defamatory communications to the media; defendant waived his argument that his actions were supported by an adequate justification; and sufficient evidence supported the conclusion that defendant's retaliatory actions proximately caused plaintiff's termination, and any error in instructing the jury on proximate cause was harmless. Finally, the panel held that defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity. View "Greisen v. Hanken" on Justia Law

Defendant challenged his life sentence imposed by the district court after it concluded he had two prior felony drug offenses under 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A). The Ninth Circuit vacated defendant's life sentence and held that his prior California Penal Code section 4573.6 conviction for inmate drug possession did not qualify as a predicate offense triggering a mandatory term of life imprisonment under section 841(b)(1)(A), because the statute was overbroad, criminalizing controlled substances under California law that are not regulated under federal law. The panel also held that the statute was indivisible and could not be a categorical felony drug offense. Finally, the panel held that the district court should be permitted to consider defendant's submissions and impose a new sentence thereafter. View "United States v. Graves" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the district court’s order compelling arbitration of claims that UPS overcharged retail customers who shipped packages through third-party facilities by applying Delivery Surcharge Rates higher than the rates UPS advertised. The panel applied California law and held that the district court's order determining that the parties had entered into a binding arbitration agreement was not clearly erroneous as a matter of law. Therefore, the extraordinary remedy of mandamus was not warranted, because plaintiff unequivocally assented to online terms that incorporated the document containing the arbitration clause in question. View "Holl v. United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The panel denied the petition as to petitioner's claims for asylum and withholding of removal, holding that substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that petitioner committed a serious nonpolitical offense and was therefore statutorily ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. However, the panel granted the petition in regard to plaintiff's claim for relief under CAT, holding that the IJ failed to consider evidence from petitioner's church that he is a practicing Christian and evidence from the country reports that Christians are persecuted and tortured in China. View "Jiang Guan v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in a putative class action against American Honda Finance and other dealerships. Plaintiff alleged that defendants failed to provide add-ons that were promised in the Dealer Addendum when plaintiff bought his new Honda.The panel affirmed and held that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action at the time of removal because the Class Action Fairness Act's home state exception barred the exercise of jurisdiction. However, the panel held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction at the time it rendered a final decision on the merits, because plaintiff voluntarily amended his complaint to assert a federal Truth in Lending Act claim.On the merits, the panel held that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the dealership defendants and American Honda Finance. In this case, plaintiff had not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was promised an add-on that he did not receive. The panel also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's request for more time for discovery. View "Singh v. American Honda Finance" on Justia Law

The Center filed suit seeking an injunction under the citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to require the Kaibab National Forest's administrator, the Forest Service, to address hunters' use of lead ammunition in the Kaibab. Scavenger birds ingest the lead ammunition left in animal carcasses and then suffer lead poisoning.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the case concerned a genuine adversary issue between the parties and that a ruling in plaintiffs' favor would require the Forest Service to mitigate in some manner the harm caused by spent lead ammunition. The panel rejected the Forest Service's contention that the district court had discretion to decline jurisdiction over the case and held that the district court did not purport to exercise discretion with regard to whether to hear this case, nor could it properly have done so. Rather, the district court's order dismissing the case was based on its determination that it lacked jurisdiction. Furthermore, because the district court improperly determined that there was no jurisdiction over this case, it failed to decide whether the operative complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. 7002 and applicable pleading standards. Accordingly, the court remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Service" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit joined its sister circuits and held that the BIA does not per se err when it concludes that arguments raised for the first time on appeal do not have to be entertained. The panel held that the rationales supporting the practice of waiver and forfeiture hold in the context of removal proceedings in the Executive Office of Immigration review. The panel explained that the BIA is an appellate body whose function is to review, not create, a record, and it would be inappropriate to force it to consider new issues on appeal by judicial fiat. In this case, the BIA did not err by declining to consider petitioner's proposed particular social groups that were raised for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, the panel denied his petition for review. View "Honcharov v. Barr" on Justia Law