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

After Gerritt Vos was shot and killed by police, Vos's parents filed suit alleging federal and state law claims. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants. In this case, officers responded to a call about Vos behaving erratically and brandishing a pair of scissors. Vos eventually charged in the officers' direction while holding the scissors above his head and officers shot him. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the facts were such that a reasonable jury could conclude that Vos was not an immediate threat to the officers, but nonetheless the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim because existing precedent did not clearly establish, beyond debate, that the officers acted unreasonably under the circumstances; because a reasonable jury could find that officers violated Vos's Fourth Amendment rights, it was appropriate to remand plaintiffs' conspiracy claims and Monell claims; defendants were not entitled to summary adjudication of plaintiffs' claims under the American with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act; and the panel reversed as to the negligence and state law claims. View "Vos v. City of Newport Beach" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit dismissed as moot plaintiffs' appeal of the district court's dismissal of their action alleging that their teacher unions' requirement to pay a fee to support political and ideological activities violated their constitutional right to free speech. The panel held that a change in plaintiffs' professional circumstances during the pendency of this appeal fundamentally altered the posture of this case. The panel also denied plaintiffs' motion to add an organization plaintiff to their suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. Accordingly, the panel remanded with instructions to dismiss the case. View "Bain v. California Teachers Association" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence after he pleaded guilty to assault resulting in serious bodily injury. The panel held that the district court properly applied a sentencing enhancement for a dangerous weapon used during the commission of the offense under USSG 2A2.2(b)(2)(B). In this case, defendant's tennis shoes qualified as dangerous weapons when he used them to kick and stomp the victim’s head. However, the district court erred in applying an enhancement for an assault that was motivated by a payment or offer of money or thing of value under USSG 2A2.2(b)(5). The panel found that no evidence suggesting that defendant had been hired by someone to assault the victim or that he had been paid anything of value. View "United States v. Swallow" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants in an action alleging employment discrimination claims. The panel held that plaintiff, a teacher, failed to establish a prima facia case of disparate treatment based on her sex and race under Title VII because she did not show that she was subject to an adverse employment action or that similarly situated individuals outside her protected class were treated more favorably; plaintiff's hostile work environment claim failed because the few isolated and relatively mild comments that plaintiff alleged were not sufficient to show a severe and pervasive environment that altered the terms or conditions of her employment; plaintiff's retaliation claim failed because plaintiff did not establish that defendants' asserted rationale for its actions was mere pretext; and plaintiff's Title IX claims for intentional discrimination failed for essentially the same reasons that her Title VII claims failed. View "Campbell v. Hawaii Department of Education" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's application for cancellation of removal. The panel held that petitioner was ineligible for relief because he was convicted of "Assault of a Child in the Third Degree – Criminal Negligence and Substantial Pain – With Sexual Motivation." The court held that petitioner's conviction was a categorical match for sexual abuse of a minor, which was an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(A). The panel reasoned that it was unnecessary to decide whether to look at state law or the line of Supreme Court precedent beginning with Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), to determine what elements were part of the offense that petitioner had been convicted of, because the sexual motivation allegation constituted an element under either approach. View "Quintero-Cisneros v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The panel held that defendant's prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon under Nevada Revised Statutes 200.471 categorically qualified as a crime of violence under the elements clause of USSG 4B1.2(a) because the statute required proof that the defendant placed the victim in fear of bodily harm and thus necessarily entailed the use or threatened use of violent physical force against the person of another. However, defendant's prior convictions for robbery and coercion did not constitute a "crime of violence" because, under the categorical approach, they were not covered by the Guidelines' definition of the term. Accordingly, the panel remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Edling" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief where petitioner contended that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney held deeply racist beliefs about African Americans in general and him in particular. The panel rejected petitioner's claim in light of Mayfield v. Woodford, 270 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc), where petitioner conceded that he was unaware of his attorney's racism until years after his conviction was final and failed to identify any acts or omissions by his attorney that fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. View "Ellis v. Harrison" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit certified the following question to the Supreme Court of California: Does a plaintiff suffer discriminatory conduct, and thus have statutory standing to bring a claim under the Unruh Act, when the plaintiff visits a business's website with the intent of using its services, encounters terms and conditions that deny the plaintiff full and equal access to its services, and then departs without entering into an agreement with the service provider? Alternatively, does the plaintiff have to engage in some further interaction with the business and its website before the plaintiff will be deemed to have been denied full and equal treatment by the business? View "White v. Square, Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from an action alleging wrongful conduct by Nike against Havensight (the tortious interference action). The tortious interference action was filed after Havensight's prior action against Nike, alleging infringement upon a soccer brand owned by Havensight (the infringement action), was dismissed with prejudice. The Ninth Circuit dismissed Havensight's appeal as to the sanctions imposed under 28 U.S.C. 1927, the vexatious litigant order, the denial of plaintiff's motion to strike, and the denial of plaintiff's application for default because those matters were not included in the notice of appeal. The panel dismissed the amended complaint because the notice of appeal was untimely where plaintiff's premature filing of a post-judgment motion did not extend the otherwise applicable appeal period. Finally, the panel deferred to the district court's factual findings as to whether plaintiff's filings were sufficiently frivolous or abusive such that Rule 11 sanctions were appropriate, and affirmed the sanctions order because the findings were amply supported by the record. View "Havensight Capital LLC v. Nike, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant in an action challenging an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plan's denial of a claim. The plan denied plaintiff's claim for the cost of an inpatient stay in a residential mental health treatment facility. The panel held that the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 did not require that the plan's coverage for stays at licensed inpatient residential treatment facilities had to be no more restrictive than stays at skilled nursing facilities. The panel explained that the Parity Act precluded the plan from deciding that it would provide room and board reimbursement at licensed skilled nursing facilities for medical and surgical patients, but not at residential treatment facilities for mental health patients. View "Danny P. v. Catholic Health Initiatives" on Justia Law