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

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss a second amended complaint on Eleventh Amendment immunity, judicial exhaustion, and abstention grounds. The panel granted Regents' request for publication in a concurrently filed order.A male University of California student filed suit against Regents and others, alleging claims under Title IX, 42 U.S.C. 1983, and state law, after he was disciplined for the sexual assault of a female student during a trip. On the merits, the panel held that the Eleventh Amendment barred plaintiff's California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 petition against Regents and the district court should have dismissed it with prejudice. Furthermore, plaintiff's section 1983 and Title IX claims were precluded because he has failed to exhaust judicial remedies by filing a section 1094.5 writ petition in state court. The panel remanded with instructions to dismiss the section 1094.5 writ claim with prejudice, but without prejudice to refiling in state court, and his section 1983, Title IX, and declaratory relief claims without prejudice. View "Doe v. Regents of the University of California" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for McKeon in a trademark infringement action alleging that McKeon's green ear plugs infringed Moldex's green earplugs. The panel held that the existence or nonexistence of alternative designs was probative of functionality or nonfunctionality, and thus evidence of alternative colors must be considered in deciding the functionality of Moldex's mark. The panel held that there was a material dispute of material facts as to whether Moldex's bright green color earplugs was functional. Therefore, the panel remanded for the district court to consider McKeon's arguments both that Moldex's green color lacked secondary meaning and that there was no likelihood of confusion, and then if necessary go to trial. View "Moldex-Metric, Inc. v. McKeon Products, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit dismissed as moot defendant's appeal from a revocation of supervised release. In this case, the Bureau of Prisons had unconditionally released defendant from custody, and his sentence was complete. The panel held that defendant has fully completed the sentence imposed for his revocation of supervised release and has identified only speculative and hypothetical collateral consequences flowing from the charge underlying his revocation. The panel rejected defendant's claim that he faced collateral consequences because he could be required to register as a sex offender and this could affect his ability to visit his children. View "United States v. King" on Justia Law

Under 11 U.S.C. 1126(e), a bankruptcy court may not designate claims for bad faith simply because (1) a creditor offers to purchase only a subset of available claims in order to block a plan of reorganization, and/or (2) blocking the plan will adversely impact the remaining creditors. At a minimum, there must be some evidence that a creditor is seeking "to secure some untoward advantage over other creditors for some ulterior motive." In this case, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court and vacated the bankruptcy court's order granting a chapter 11 debtor's motion to designate claims for bad faith and preclude the claims from being voted against a plan of reorganization. The panel held that the bankruptcy court erred when it refused to analyze whether Pacific Western acted under an "ulterior motive," beyond its "mere enlightened self interest" in protecting its secured claim. The panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Pacific Western Bank v. Fagerdala USA" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income for claimant. The panel held that the ALJ erred in not adequately addressing claimant's 100 percent Veterans Affairs (VA) disability rating in her decision; although the ALJ noted claimant's VA disability rating at the hearing and in her written decision, she did not address how she had considered and weighed the VA's rating or articulated any reasons for rejecting it; and thus remand was appropriate where it was unclear from the record whether the ALJ would be required to find claimant disabled after evaluating the VA disability rating. View "Luther v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

California consumer protection laws do not obligate Mars, Inc. to label their goods as possibly being produced by child or slave labor. In the absence of any affirmative misrepresentations by the manufacturer, the manufacturer did not have a duty to disclose the labor practices in question, even though they were reprehensible, because they were not physical defects that affected the central function of the chocolate products. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action alleging that Mars had a duty to disclose on its labels the labor practices that may have tainted its supply chain. In this pure omissions case concerning no physical product defect relating to the central function of the chocolate and no safety defect, the panel held that plaintiff has not sufficiently pleaded that Mars had a duty to disclose on its labels the labor issues in its supply chain. Absent such a duty, plaintiff's claims under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law claims were foreclosed. View "Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc." on Justia Law

A company must assume the unpaid withdrawal liability of its predecessor to a multiemployer pension plan if it was on constructive notice of potential withdrawal liability. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment for plaintiffs in an action under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendment Act (MPPAA). The panel held that congressional purpose, the liberal remedial construction of the MPPAA adopted in previous cases, the adoption of a constructive notice standard in other contexts, and the practical realities of asset purchases all support a conclusion that constructive notice of withdrawal liability is sufficient to trigger successor withdrawal liability under the MPPAA. Applying a constructive notice standard in this case, the panel held that Amstar had constructive notice because a reasonable purchaser would have discovered Ohana's withdrawal liability. View "Heavenly Hana LLC v. Hotel Union & Hotel Industry of Hawaii Pension Plan" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision denying petitioner's application of asylum and withholding of removal. The panel held that substantial evidence supported the determination that petitioner's testimony, even if credible, was not persuasive and did not sufficiently demonstrate eligibility for refugee status; the IJ and BIA determinations that petitioner needed corroborating evidence were supported by the record; petitioner did not provide any meaningful corroborating evidence and that failure supported the denial of his applications; and petitioner had sufficient notice that corroborating evidence was required. View "Jie Shi Liu v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law to Jay-Z and other defendants in an action brought by the heir to the Egyptian composer Baligh Hamdy, alleging copyright infringement in the song Khosara. Jay-Z used a sample from the arrangement in the background music to his single Big Pimpin'. The panel held that the heir to Hamdy's copyright may not sue Jay-Z for infringement based solely on the fact that Egyptian law recognizes an inalienable "moral right" of the author to object to offensive uses of a copyrighted work. The panel held: (1) that Egyptian law recognizes a transferable economic right to prepare derivative works; (2) that the moral rights the heir retained by operation of Egyptian law were not enforceable in U.S. federal court; and (3) that, even if they were, the heir has not complied with the compensation requirement of Egyptian law, which did not provide for his requested money damages, and which provided for only injunctive relief from an Egyptian court. View "Fahmy v. Jay-Z" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to defendants, University of California officials, for the use of batons against protesters by University police officers during the Occupy Wall Street movement in 2011. Regarding direct force claims, the panel held that Sergeant Tucker and Officer Lachler did not use excessive force against four plaintiffs and they were entitled to use the minimal force they did to move the crowd in order to gain access to the tents erected in violation of university policy. Regarding the supervisory force claims, the panel held that the district court erred by denying summary judgment to some defendants, who were not in the police chain of command, and had no supervisory authority over the police who allegedly committed the violations. The panel also held that other defendants did not have sufficient personal involvement in the alleged acts of force. Finally, regarding supervisory force claims, some plaintiffs either failed to identify officers who used excessive force, or plaintiffs had not shown a violation of a clearly established right. View "Felarca v. Birgeneau" on Justia Law