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

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a complaint brought by Deborah Colbert's biological son after Colbert was killed by police officers during a response to a 911 call. The complaint alleged claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court dismissed the case, finding that plaintiff had no legally cognizable interest in his relationship with Colbert and that he was not a proper successor in interest to her under California law because he had been adopted by other parents as an infant.The panel held that California's survival statute was consistent with 42 U.S.C. 1983, and thus applied to the instant action; plaintiff did not meet the requirements for standing under California law and thus could not assert section 1983 claims on behalf of Colbert; although federal common law applied to the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims, plaintiff was still not an appropriate plaintiff for a survival action based on those laws; plaintiff could not bring a claim for loss of companionship with Colbert because they did not have the kind of parent-child relationship entitled to this type of constitutional protection; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend. View "Wheeler v. City of Santa Clara" on Justia Law

The Clean Air Act did not grant movant an "unconditional right" to intervene in the government's suit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a motion to intervene in the government's Clean Air Act enforcement action against Volkswagen. The panel held that the Act's citizen suit provision did not grant movant an unconditional right to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(1) where 42 U.S.C. 7604(b)(1)(B)'s diligent prosecution bar circumscribed a citizen's right to intervene in an enforcement action under that same provision; a citizen who retained the right to file suit on his own, despite a government enforcement action, had no statutory right to intervene in that action; and the government was not suing to enforce a "standard, limitation, or order" within the meaning of the Act, and thus the diligent prosecution bar did not preclude movant's claims and he was free to bring his own citizen suit. In the alternative, movant's proposed complaints-in-intervention demonstrated that he was not seeking to enforce the provisions invoked by the government, and thus he could have filed his own suit and was not entitled to intervene in the government's action. View "Hill v. Volkswagen, AG" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of Pinkette, which sells LUSH-branded women's fashions, in a trademark infringement action brought by CWL, which sells LUSH-branded cosmetics and related goods. The panel distinguished between Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014), and SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, 137 S. Ct. 954 (2017), holding that the principle at work in these cases—a concern over laches overriding a statute of limitations—did not apply here, where the Lanham Act has no statute of limitations and expressly makes laches a defense to cancellation. In this case, the district court applied the correct standard when it applied the factors set forth in E-Sys., Inc. v. Monitek, Inc., 720 F.2d 604 (9th Cir. 1983), to CWL's claim for injunctive relief. After analyzing the E-Systems factors, the panel held that they validate the strong presumption in favor of laches created by CWL's delaying past the expiration of the most analogous state statute of limitations. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying laches to bar CWL's cancellation and infringement claims. The panel held that CWL's remaining arguments were without merit. View "Pinkette Cothing, Inc. v. Cosmetic Warriors Limited" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Bank in an action challenging the Bank's authorization of nearly $4.8 billion in financing for two liquid natural gas projects near the Great Barrier Reef. The panel held that events occurring after the district court's ruling did not make environmental group plaintiff's claims moot. However, plaintiffs lacked standing because, even under the relaxed redressability standards applicable in this case, plaintiffs failed to show that performance of the additional procedures required under the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act could redress the alleged environmental injury. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. Export-Import Bank of the United States" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's imposition of supervised release conditions requiring defendant to participate in a sex offense-specific assessment and, if recommended by a probation officer, that he submit to polygraph testing in conjunction with the assessment. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the conditions where they were not particularly burdensome and where they relate to defendant's crime of conviction. View "United States v. Hohag" on Justia Law

Experian compiled the Consumer View Database, which contains more than 250 million records, each pertaining to an individual consumer, which includes compiled pairings of names and addresses. The Ninth Circuit held that the name and address pairings were copyrightable as compilations but were entitled only to limited protection under the copyright laws. The panel held that Experian established that its lists were copyrightable but failed to establish that its copyright had been infringed because it did not establish a bodily appropriation of its work. Therefore, the panel affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Natimark on the copyright infringement claim. However, the panel reversed as to the state law trade secret claim, remanding for further proceedings. View "Experian Information Solutions, Inc. v. Nationwide Marketing Services, Inc." on Justia Law

The plain language and legislative history of the Endangered Species Act make clear that permits or other exemptions are affirmative defenses, not elements of the crime itself. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment vacating defendant's conviction for taking a grizzly bear in violation of the ESA. The panel held that the lower court erred in its formulation of the elements of the crime, improperly placing the burden of proving the nonexistence of a permit on the Government. Therefore, the panel rejected defendant's argument because he presented no evidence at trial that he possessed a permit. The panel affirmed the lower court rulings that defendant was not entitled to a jury trial. However, because the lower court erred in applying an objective standard to defendant's self-defense claim, the error was not harmless. View "United States v. Charette" on Justia Law

In 2008, the Veras and 13 co-conspirators, were charged with conspiracy to distribute narcotics. The co-conspirators pled guilty. A jury found the Veras guilty and returned a special verdict holding them responsible for at least: 100 grams of heroin, 500 grams of cocaine, and 280 grams of cocaine base. The court sentenced Salvador to 360 months’ and Armando to 210 months’ imprisonment. The Ninth Circuit vacated their sentences. The government’s “key witness,” FBI Special Agent Lavis, had opined about the government’s “primary evidence” against the Veras: over 70 wiretapped phone calls that were played or read before the jury. Aside from one proven sale of heroin, Lavis’ opinions interpreting the wiretapped calls were the only evidence of specific quantities. The court concluded the testimony “did not rest on reliable methods” but on speculation. On remand, the government relied heavily upon the co-conspirators’ plea agreements to establish the quantities of drugs attributable to the brothers. The court found the evidence reliable. The plea agreements, which the government drafted, pointed fingers at the Veras. Citing Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3), (statement-against-interest exception to the hearsay rule), the court concluded that the co-conspirators’ admissions amounted to declarations against interest and sentenced Salvador to 324 months’ and Armando to 168 months’ imprisonment. The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded. The factual bases in the plea agreements were neither inherently reliable as statements against interest nor corroborated by other information that made their reliability apparent. View "United States v. Vera" on Justia Law

Vogel, a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair, visited Harbor Plaza Shopping Center and, in the parking lot, encountered barriers that prevented him from fully enjoying the shopping center. Vogel sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, statutory damages, and attorney’s fees. Defendant filed an answer. The court scheduled trial for October 2015. In September 2014, the court approved Defendant’s request to substitute counsel, The request was signed by Defendant’s new lawyer and Defendant’s vice-president. Defendant and Defendant’s lawyer thereafter stopped appearing. Plaintiff prepared for trial. At the scheduled pretrial conference, Defendant and its lawyer failed to appear. The court noted that, in 2005, Defendant’s lawyer had been convicted of a federal corruption charge, continued the pretrial conference and ordered Plaintiff to provide notice. Plaintiff provided notice but they failed to appear at the continued conference. The court struck Defendant’s answer. Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for default, which the court entered. Plaintiff eventually moved for default judgment, seeking $36,671.25 in attorney’s fees and submitting a seven-page itemized list of his firm's work. The court granted Plaintiff default judgment; entered an injunction ordering Defendant to make specific structural changes; awarded Plaintiff statutory damages of $4,000 and costs, $3,590.83.1; and applying the local court rule’s formula, calculated fees of $600. The Ninth Circuit vacated the award. By eschewing the ordinary considerations that apply when calculating fees in ADA cases, the district court abused its discretion. View "Vogel v. Harbor Plaza Center, LLC" on Justia Law

Bermudez-Ariza, a citizen of Colombia, alleges that he fled Colombia to escape persecution by the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia on account of his political opinions. He entered the United States illegally in 2002, and, in removal proceedings, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ initially denied all relief but, on subsequent remand from the BIA, reconsidered and granted asylum. The BIA vacated the IJ’s decision, holding that the IJ lacked jurisdiction to reconsider asylum on remand. The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review and remanded to the BIA for consideration, on the merits, of the grant of asylum. For the BIA to retain jurisdiction when remanding to an IJ, it must expressly retain jurisdiction, and qualify or limit the scope of the remand. If the BIA fails to do either of those things, the scope of the remand is general and the IJ may reconsider any prior decisions, 8 C.F.R. 1003.23(b)(1). Because the BIA did not expressly retain jurisdiction when it remanded to the IJ in this case, the IJ had jurisdiction to reconsider his initial denial of Bermudez-Ariza’s application for asylum. View "Bermudez-Ariza v. Sessions" on Justia Law