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

In the circumstances of this case, the Ninth Circuit held that federal courts should not abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to a state criminal statute while there are ongoing state court protection order proceedings arguably related to a challenge to the criminal statute. While plaintiff was the respondent in a Washington state court temporary stalking protection order proceeding, he filed a federal action seeking to enjoin enforcement of Washington's cyberstalking statute.The panel held that the Washington state stalking protection order proceedings against plaintiff did not fit into the narrow category of state cases in which federal abstention was appropriate under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The panel reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint, because the state protection proceedings did not present the exceptional circumstances that warranted abstention. Therefore, the panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Rynearson v. Ferguson" on Justia Law

A defendant that timely asserts that the district court lacks personal jurisdiction and litigates the issue to an adverse decision from the district court does not waive the personal jurisdiction defense by vigorously litigating defenses to the merits, including by asserting counterclaims against other parties. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment compelling arbitration of contract claims and held that the Bank was entitled to litigate its defenses and counterclaims in a related matter between similar parties without waiving the issue of personal jurisdiction, because the Bank had timely asserted the personal jurisdiction defense and received an adverse ruling (that jurisdiction was proper) from the district court. The panel remanded for dismissal based on lack of personal jurisdiction. View "InfoSpan, Inc. v. Emirates NBD Bank PSJC" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a complaint challenging Oregon's Clean Fuels Program, alleging that it violated the Commerce Clause and was preempted by section 211(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Program regulates the production and sale of transportation fuels based on greenhouse gas emissions.Determining that Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, 730 F.3d 1070, 1081 (9th Cir. 2013), was controlling as to the Commerce Clause claim, the panel held that, like the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard at issue in Rocky Mountain, the Oregon Program discriminated against fuels based on lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, not state of origin. The panel also held that the complaint failed to plausibly allege that the Oregon Program was discriminatory in purpose, and the Program did not violate the Commerce Clause and principles of interstate federalism by attempting to control commerce occurring outside the boundaries of the state. The panel also held that the EPA's decision not to regulate methane was not preemptive under the CAA. View "American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers v. O'Keeffe" on Justia Law

In light of Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), and recent case law from this Circuit, California robbery is no longer a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. 16(a) or 16(b). The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea for illegally reentering the United States after having been deported and after having been convicted of an aggravated felony. The panel held that, in light of this marked shift in the law governing crime-of-violence analysis, defendant had a plausible ground for dismissal of the indictment and thus demonstrated a fair and just reason for withdrawing his guilty plea. View "United States v. Garcia-Lopez" on Justia Law

GAC appealed the district court's remand of plaintiff's putative class action to Los Angeles Superior Court. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court erroneously found that more than two-thirds of the putative class members were citizens of California at the time of removal. Therefore, the panel vacated the district court's remand to state court and remanded to federal district court for further proceedings. In district court, plaintiff should be permitted to conduct jurisdictional discovery in this matter and to renew her motion to remand. View "King v. Great American Chicken Corp, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas relief challenging petitioner's conviction for domestic violence, assault, and vandalism. The panel held that it was error for the state trial judge not to sua sponte order a competency hearing given the numerous signs of petitioner's mental incompetency, including his suicide attempt on the eve of trial. The panel remanded to the district court with instructions to grant the writ unless, within a reasonable time, the state grants a new trial. The panel need not address petitioner's other issues and dismissed his appeals as moot. View "Anderson v. Gipson" on Justia Law

FERC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying a complaint brought by the Turlock and Modesto Irrigation Districts alleging that PG&E breached agreements between the parties. The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review of FERC's orders and held that FERC misinterpreted the definition of "Adverse Impact" to the service territories of the Districts, and thus improperly disposed of the Districts' complaints without determining whether changes to the Remedial Action Scheme may result in reductions in transmission over the California-Oregon Transmission Project. The panel also held that FERC applied the wrong standard for initiating a study when making its factual findings. The panel directed FERC on remand to apply the broader definition of Adverse Impact that included reductions in import capability over the California-Oregon Transmission Project and the proper standard for requesting a study in determining whether PG&E breached the Interconnection Agreements. View "Turlock Irrigation District v. FERC" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit certified a question of state law to the Supreme Court of California: Whether work installing electrical equipment on locomotives and rail cars (i.e., the "onboard work" for Metrolink's PTC project) falls within the definition of "public works" under California Labor Code 1720(a)(1) either (a) as constituting "construction" or "installation" under the statute or (b) as being integral to other work performed for the PTC project on the wayside (i.e., the "field installation work"). View "Busker v. Wabtec Corp." on Justia Law

State-law claims brought against the NFL by former professional football players were not preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). In this case, a putative class of retired NFL players alleged that the NFL distributed controlled substances and prescription drugs to its players in violation of both state and federal laws, and that the manner in which these drugs were administered left the players with permanent injuries and chronic medical conditions. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the action, holding that the players' claims, as pled, neither arose from their collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) nor required their interpretation. View "Dent v. National Football League" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed suit against Oregon state officials, challenging the rejection by Oregon voters of Senate Bill 833, which would have afforded Oregon residents access to driver cards without requiring proof of their legal presence in the United States. The panel held that plaintiffs failed to establish redressability, because their requested remedies were either ineffective or beyond the scope of the district court's remedial power. In this case, the court could not order the state officials to implement SB 833 and thus issue driver cards. View "M.S. v. Brown" on Justia Law