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

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against the City and its employees, alleging that she was retaliated against in her employment as a Community Service Officer for the police department. The Ninth Circuit held that plaintiff was fulfilling her professional duty for the Department when she spoke at the City Club event. Therefore, because she spoke as a public employee, and not as a private citizen, her speech was unprotected, and her First Amendment retaliation claim failed. The panel held, however, that the Amended Agreement restricted private citizen speech on matters of public concern and failed the Pickering balancing test. Therefore, the Amended Agreement restrained plaintiff's speech as a private citizen on matters of public concern and defendants failed to present justifications sufficient to warrant the overbroad restrictions. Therefore, the prospective restriction violated the First Amendment and the panel reversed as to this claim. Finally, the panel reversed and remanded on the issue of Monell liability. View "Barone v. City of Springfield" on Justia Law

A class of retired employees filed suit alleging that two reforms adopted by the County of Orange violated their vested rights when it restructured its health benefits program, in violation of the County's contractual obligations, and constituted age discrimination in violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the FEHA claim, holding that plaintiffs had no contractual right to continue receiving the Retiree Premium Subsidy pursuant to the holding in Retired Emps. Ass'n of Orange Cty., Inc. v. Cty. of Orange (REAOC V), 742 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2014); California law did not fault the County for offering different benefits to retirees and to active employees at the outset, absent a FEHA violation; the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act applied to plaintiffs; and plaintiffs' claim of unlawful age discrimination under FEHA failed as a matter of law. The panel held, however, that the district court erred in dismissing some of plaintiffs' contract claims. The panel held that plaintiffs set forth sufficient allegations regarding the continuation of the Grant Benefit during the employees' lifetime to survive a motion to dismiss. View "Harris v. County of Orange" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress a handgun found in his backpack. The panel held that the district court properly concluded that the handgun inevitably would have been discovered in an inventory search at the time of booking.The panel reversed defendant's 48 month sentence, holding that defendant's prior first degree robbery conviction under Washington law was not a crime of violence under USSG 2K2.1(a)(2) and 4B1.2. The panel held that Washington's robbery statute was not a categorical match for the offenses of robbery and extortion enumerated in section 4B1.2(a)(2). However, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying a two-level enhancement for reckless endangerment during flight under USSG 3C1.2. View "United States v. Peterson" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed defendant's conviction for possession of unauthorized access devices and aggravated identity theft, holding that the district court erred by failing to excuse a juror for cause under an actual bias theory. The panel held that when a juror was unable to state that she would serve fairly and impartially despite being asked repeatedly for such assurances, the panel could have no confidence that the juror would lay aside her biases or her prejudicial personal experiences and render a fair and impartial verdict. In this case, there was concern about whether Juror No. 3 could put her social security theft five years ago out of her mind. View "United States v. Kechedzian" on Justia Law

Providers filed a class action in state court alleging that GHC violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act by using the Milliman Care Guidelines for mental healthcare coverage. After GHC removed to federal court, the district court denied Providers' motion to remand and granted a motion to dismiss in part. The district court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Providers' claims as to GHC's administration of non-Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plans, and remanded that part of the case back to Washington state court.The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Providers' claims did not fall within the scope of, and so were not completely preempted by, section 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA. The panel reversed the district court's exercise of subject matter jurisdiction in dismissing these claims, and remanded with instructions for the district court to return the entirety of this action to the Washington superior court. View "Hansen v. Group Health Cooperative" on Justia Law

Nevada Senate Bill 223, which limits damages that can be collected from general contractors and imposed notification requirements on contractors and welfare benefit plans, was a legitimate exercise of Nevada's traditional state authority and was not preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs. Determining that the appeal was not moot, the panel held that SB 223 was not preempted because it did not intrude on any federally regulated field, conflict with ERISA's objectives, or otherwise impermissibly relate to ERISA plans. Rather, SB 223 targeted an area of traditional state concern—debt collection—and pared back a state-conferred entitlement to collect unpaid debts from third-party general contractors. Therefore, SB 223 was a legitimate exercise of Nevada's traditional state authority. View "Board of Trustees of the Glazing Health and Welfare Trust v. Chambers" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, who are homeless or have recently been homeless, filed suit against the City seeking retrospective relief for their previous citations under the Camping Ordinance and Disorderly Conduct Ordinance. The panel held that an ordinance violates the Eighth Amendment insofar as it imposes criminal sanctions against homeless individuals for sleeping outdoors, on public property, when no alternative shelter is available to them. The panel also held that two of the plaintiffs may be entitled to retrospective and prospective relief for violation of that Eighth Amendment right. These two plaintiffs have demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether they face a credible risk of prosecution under the ordinances in the future on a night when they have been denied access to Boise's homeless shelters. Accordingly, the panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. View "Martin v. City of Boise" on Justia Law

Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights protected in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), do not extend to statements that are nontestimonial. Petitioner appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for habeas relief, challenging his California conviction for premeditated attempted murder, possession of a shank in jail, and participation in a criminal street gang.The panel affirmed the district court's judgment as to petitioner's Bruton claim. The panel held that, because the codefendant statement at issue was nontestimonial and thus not within the Confrontation Clause's protection under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004), the Bruton protections concerning the introduction of statements by non-testifying codefendants did not apply. The panel reversed, however, the district court's denial of the habeas petition as to the sufficiency of the evidence under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), on one of the three offenses for which petitioner was convicted, possession of a dirk or dagger or sharp instrument in jail. View "Lucero v. Holland" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress narcotics that border patrol agents found in defendant's vehicle. The panel held that, given the totality of the circumstances, the agents had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting defendant was engaged in criminal activity and had reasonable suspicion to stop him. The panel also affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's request for the court to take judicial notice of other border patrol stops. View "United States v. Raygoza-Garcia" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant and denial of plaintiff's motion to remand in an action alleging violation of a City of San Jose minimum wage ordinance. The district court concluded that plaintiff failed to first exhaust his claim through a required grievance process.The panel held that, whether plaintiff's claims were exhausted or not, the district court was without jurisdiction to hear this case. The panel recognized the strong preemptive force of section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), but held that plaintiff's suit amounted to an interpretive challenge to the San Jose ordinance, not one that required substantial analysis of his union's collective-bargaining agreement. Therefore, the panel remanded for removal to state court and further proceedings. View "McCray v. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc." on Justia Law