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

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for conspiring to suppress and restrain competition by rigging bids, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1. The panel held that bid rigging is per se illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and thus the district court did not err by refusing to permit defendant to introduce evidence of the alleged ameliorative effects of his conduct. View "United States v. Joyce" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated defendant's conviction and sentence under the 2005 version of 18 U.S.C. 2423(c), which applies to a U.S. citizen who travels in foreign commerce, and engages in any illicit sexual conduct with another person. In this case, defendant, a U.S. citizen, drugged and raped several children in Cambodia, where he claims to have resided for several years. The panel held that Congress subsequently amended the statute to add a new basis for criminal liability. The panel held that, from the statutory amendment, as well as the accompanying legislative history, it was evident that section 2423(c) was previously inapplicable to U.S. citizens living abroad unless they were traveling—meaning something more than being in transit—when they had illicit sex. Because the jury was not properly instructed on the travel element in this case, the panel vacated and remanded should the government elect to retry him. View "United States v. Pepe" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a petition for habeas relief based on the ineffective assistance of counsel at resentencing. The panel held that counsel performed deficiently by failing to challenge evidence that petitioner committed murder for pecuniary gain, and by failing to conduct an adequate investigation of mitigating factors; the state post-conviction court's contrary conclusion was an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington and Wiggins v. United States; and there was a reasonable likelihood that petitioner would have received a different sentence if counsel's performance were not deficient. Accordingly, the panel remanded with instructions to grant a conditional writ. View "White v. Ryan" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's summary judgment in favor of a condominium association. The panel held that condominium association assessments that become due after a debtor has filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 were dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 1328(a). In this case, debtor's personal obligation to pay the assessments was not the result of a separate, post-petition transaction but was created when she took title to the condominium unit. Therefore, the debt for the assessments arose pre-petition and was dischargeable under section 1328(a), unless the Bankruptcy Code provided an exception to discharge. The panel held that the personal debt arising from the assessments was not excepted from discharge under section 1328(a). Finally, the Takings Clause was not implicated and equitable arguments did not override the express provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. View "Goudelock v. Sixty-01 Association of Apartment Owners" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that the distribution-of-pornography enhancement in USSG 2G2.1(b)(3) applies when the perpetrator creates an illicit image of a minor victim and shares it only with the victim. The panel issued a limited remand for resentencing because the record suggesteds that the district court penalized defendant by increasing his sentence based on his decision to exercise his Sixth Amendment right to go to trial. View "United States v. Silva Hernandez" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the dismissal of an action against Medicare Advantage organizations under the False Claims Act (FCA). Relator alleged that Medicare Advantage organizations retained MedXM to fraudulently increase, or at least maintain, their capitation payments for enrollees whose risk scores were set to expire and revert to the unadjusted Medicare beneficiary average. The panel held that relator has pleaded a wheel conspiracy-like fraud in which MedXM was the hub and defendants were the spokes. Therefore, the panel held that relator's charges of factually false claims, express false certifications, and false records should not have been dismissed due to her use of group allegations. The panel rejected defendants' contentions that the complaint failed to allege a sufficient factual basis to link MedXM's misconduct to defendants' actual submissions of claims or certifications to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or that the complaint's allegations about the Medicare Advantage organizations' knowledge of the alleged fraud did not satisfy Rule 8. Finally, the panel affirmed the dismissal of a reverse false claim count, reversed dismissal on the pleadings of other counts, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States ex rel. Silingo v. WellPoint, Inc." on Justia Law

An "agricultural practice exception" set forth in 50 C.F.R. 20.21(i)(1) applies to unlawful taking, but not unlawful baiting. The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for illegally baiting ducks in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and conspiring to do the same. The panel held that section 20.21(i)(1) had no role to play in defendant's case because the indictment charged him with baiting, rather than taking, migratory birds. The panel explained that, by attempting to prove that the agricultural practice exception did not apply, the government assumed a heavier burden than the law required. Therefore, the erroneous application of section 20.21(i)(1) to defendant's case was harmless. View "United States v. Obendorf" on Justia Law

Objectors challenged the district court's judgments in a settlement involving Volkswagen after the company admitted that it had installed defeat devices in certain models of their vehicles. These devices were at the center of a massive scheme by VW to cheat on U.S. emissions tests. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class where eligible sellers benefited from being in the class alongside vehicle owners and there were no signs of an improper conflict of interest that denied absent class members adequate representation. Furthermore, the district court more than discharged its duty in ensuring that the settlement was fair and adequate to the class. The panel also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Tori Partl's motion to opt out of the settlement class after the deadline to do so had passed. In this case, she had actual and timely notice of the proper method of excluding herself from the settlement, and was therefore responsible for the failure to opt out on time. View "Hill v. Volkswagen, AG" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of a petition for habeas relief and remanded with instructions to grant the writ. Petitioner argued that his sentence under the Three Strikes law was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). The panel held that petitioner's request to represent himself was timely and his appellate counsel rendered constitutionally deficient performance by failing to raise the compelling Faretta claim. Furthermore, petitioner was prejudiced by counsel's deficient performance where counsel's failure to raise that claim undermined confidence in the outcome of petitioner's appeal. View "Tamplin v. Muniz" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part dismissal of claims for resale royalties under the California Resale Royalties Act. The Act grants artists an unwaivable right to 5% of the proceeds on any resale of their artwork under specified circumstances. The panel held that plaintiffs' claims under the Act were covered by the 1976 Copyright Act and were expressly preempted. Therefore, the panel dismissed those claims. The panel held, however, that the 1909 Copyright Act had no express preemption provisions. Therefore, plaintiffs' claims under the Act were covered only by the 1909 Act and could not be expressly preempted. Furthermore, these claims were not preempted by conflict preemption. The panel reversed dismissal of those claims and remanded for further proceedings. View "Close v. Sotheby's, Inc." on Justia Law