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

After plaintiff was denied housing due to disclosures appearing in a tenant screening report, he filed suit against TSP, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), California's Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), and California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The district court dismissed all but one cause of action and granted summary judgment on the remaining FCRA claim.The panel held that the district court erred by concluding that the ICRAA is unconstitutionally vague as applied to tenant screening applications; the panel was bound by the holding in Connor v. First Student, Inc., 423 P.3d 953 (Cal. 2018), that the ICRAA overlaps with the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, which forecloses TSP's argument that the statutory scheme in unconstitutionally vague; and thus the panel reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The panel remanded for the district court to decide whether plaintiff stated a UCL claim predicated on TSP's ICRAA violations. Finally, the panel held that the FCRA permits consumer reporting of a criminal charge for only seven years following the date of entry of the charge. In this case, the report's inclusion of a 2000 charge fell outside of the permissible seven year window. Therefore, plaintiff stated sufficient claims under the FCRA. View "Moran v. The Screening Pros, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of 90 counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Defendant obtained millions of dollars from victims by telling them that he needed to pay CIA and FBI agents to protect him and his family from the Mafia, and that he would pay the victims back.The Ninth Circuit vacated in part, agreeing with the parties that insufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions for Counts 81-90. The panel rejected defendant's claim that his waiver of counsel was invalid; that he was not competent to represent himself; that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him; that the government committed misconduct during trial; that the district court erred by not granting him a continuance; that his trial suffered cumulative error; and that the district court erred in denying his post-trial motions. Accordingly, the panel affirmed defendant's convictions as to Counts 1-80 and Count 91. The panel remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Audette" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment after the panel certified two questions to the Washington State Supreme Court. The state court held that a priority use provision, an affirmative obligation to maintain and repair, and the ability to lease the property to others together create sufficient control of the property such that a landowner who leases the property is held liable as a premises owner. View "Adamson v. Port of Bellingham" on Justia Law

Petitioner appealed the district court's denial of his motion for a writ of habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). The Ninth Circuit, assuming without deciding that there was no procedural default and failure to exhaust, held that, although the Arizona Supreme Court erred in rejecting petitioner's proffered mental impairment mitigation evidence, the error was harmless because the state court made a reasonable determination of the facts in concluding that petitioner suffered from no mental impairment and thus did not violate Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982).However, the panel reversed in part and held that the Arizona Superior Court erred in holding that petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated by his counsel's deficient performance at the penalty phase under Strickland v. Washington. Accordingly, the panel remanded with directions to grant the writ with respect to petitioner's sentence. View "Kayer v. Ryan" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion for habeas relief in connection with a 2012 conviction for which he received an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The panel held that Voisine v. United States,136 S. Ct. 2272 (2016), which held that a misdemeanor conviction for recklessly assaulting a domestic relation disqualifies an individual from possessing a firearm under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9), did not expressly overrule Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2006)(en banc), which held that Arizona Revised Statute 13-1203(A)(1) does not have as an element "the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against the person . . . of another" because it encompasses reckless conduct. The panel held that Voisine expressly left open the question that Fernandez-Ruiz answered. View "United States v. Orona" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for illegally reentering the United States after having been removed. The panel held that, although the district court abused its discretion by admitting an expert's testimony regarding a fingerprint taken during the 2015 removal proceedings without first finding it relevant and reliable, the error was harmless because the record was sufficient to determine that the expert testimony was relevant and reliable under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. View "United States v. Ruvalcaba-Garcia" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion arguing that his sentence was improperly enhanced under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1). The panel held that defendant's underlying offense of Robbery on a Government Reservation in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2111, even if done by intimidation alone, is categorically a crime of violence under the elements clause of section 924(c)(3)(A). View "United States v. Fultz" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's appeal of the IJ's determinations that petitioner was removable and ineligible for asylum. The IJ determined that petitioner's prior California felony conviction for possession of marijuana was an "aggravated felony" and an offense "relating to a controlled substance" that rendered her removable. However, petitioner argued that the conviction was no longer a predicate to removal because it was recalled and reclassified as a misdemeanor under California's Proposition 64.The panel held that valid state convictions retain their immigration consequences even when modified or expunged for reasons of state public policy. Therefore, the panel agreed with the BIA that petitioner's initial conviction retained its immigration consequences and rendered her removable. View "Prado v. Barr" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings concerning Defendant Carpenter and Velazquez's joint trial where they were convicted of conspiracy to kidnap and kidnapping. The panel held that the common law right of access attaches to pre-trial offers of proof for a duress defense. In this case, because Carpenter failed to provide a compelling reason to overcome this presumptive right of access, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to seal her proffer. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting "other act" evidence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 404(b). However, although the district court erred in admitting evidence of Velazquez's methamphetamine use, the panel held that the error was harmless. View "United States v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

The settlement agreement—and in particular, the intent of the settling parties—determines the preclusive effect of the previous action. The settlement agreement in this case released plaintiff's and the class's claims against various parties, but it explicitly did not release any claims against Kohlberg.The Ninth Circuit held that, because the settlement specifically did not release plaintiff's and the class's claims against Kohlberg, claim preclusion did not bar plaintiff's current claim. Therefore, the district court erred by dismissing the action on claim preclusion grounds. The panel reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Wojciechowski v. Kohlberg Ventures, LLC" on Justia Law