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

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order granting a motion to dismiss Union Pacific's counterclaims in class actions filed by landowners challenging the railroad's ability to lease land to Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines (SFPP). The panel rejected plaintiffs' contention that the panel should not reach the merits of the certified questions and declined to apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel. With respect to the first certified question, the panel held that the pre-1871 Acts, which Congress passed to aid in the construction of railroad lines, do not require a "railroad purpose." In regard to the second certified question, the panel held that Union Pacific has plausibly alleged that the pipeline serves such a purpose. Therefore, the court remanded with instructions to grant leave to amend. View "Wells v. Union Pacific Railroad Co." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order on remand denying petitioner's claims that the California state court improperly denied his motion for a new trial based on the State's prosecutorial misconduct. Petitioner was convicted of raping and killing an eighteen-month-old girl. The panel held that the district court properly denied further discovery in light of its finding that there was no good cause to permit additional discovery because petitioner received the adverse inference he desired and further discovery into the State's alleged spoliation of evidence would not affect the decision of the remaining witness intimidation claim of the habeas petition. The panel also held that the district court did not clearly err in weighing the credibility of the witnesses in light of the evidence adduced at the hearing. View "Earp v. Davis" on Justia Law

The absence of federal law is not a prerequisite to adopting state law as surrogate federal law under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A). The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of an action alleging wage and hour violations under California law. The panel rejected the proposition that "necessity to fill a significant void or gap," was required in order to assimilate "applicable and not inconsistent," state law into federal law governing drilling platforms affixed to the outer Continental Shelf. Finally, the panel vacated the dismissal of claims brought under California's meal period, final pay, and pay stubs laws. The panel remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court shall determined whether these laws were "not inconsistent" with the existing federal law. View "Newton v. Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd." on Justia Law

A presumption of validity did not attach to a stipulation by defense counsel that their clients waived their right to a jury trial on their criminal charges. The Ninth Circuit reversed based on the ineffective jury trial waivers in this case and held that the record was insufficient to show that the jury trial waivers were voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. The panel reasoned that the proper practice under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a) was for the defendant to personally execute the written waiver. Therefore, the panel concluded that the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence, but remanded based on the ineffective jury trial waivers. View "United States v. Laney" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendant in an action under the Copyright Act, alleging that defendant infringed on plaintiff's pen and ink depiction of two dolphins crossing underwater. The panel applied the objective extrinsic test for substantial similarity and held that the depiction of two dolphins crossing underwater in this case is an idea that is found first in nature and is not a protectable element. The panel explained that when as here, the only areas of commonality are elements first found in nature, expressing ideas that nature has already expressed for all, a court need not permit the case to go to a trier of fact. View "Folkens v. Wyland Worldwide, LLC" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit denied defendants' 28 U.S.C. 2255 motions challenging the validity of their convictions for carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. The panel held that bank robbery "by force and violence, or by intimidation" is a crime of violence under the force clause of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). The panel reasoned that, because defendants' predicate offense, armed bank robbery, could not be based on conduct that involved less force than unarmed bank robbery requires, armed bank robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under section 924(c) as well. View "United States v. Watson" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order remanding plaintiff's putative class action against Wal-Mart to California state court. The panel held that the district court erred by exceeding its statutory authority in remanding sua sponte based on a nonjurisdictional defect. The panel also held that Wal-Mart did not waive its right to remove by filing a demurrer in state court, when its right to remove pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), was not ascertainable from plaintiff's pleading. Accordingly, the court remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Kenny v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's imposition of a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1), after defendant pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. The panel held that neither of defendant's prior convictions for first-degree robbery under Alabama law nor second-degree robbery under California law was a violent felony under the ACCA. In this case, at least two of defendant's four prior non-drug convictions did not qualify as violent felonies and thus defendant should not have been subject to the ACCA's mandatory sentencing provision. Accordingly, the panel remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Walton" on Justia Law

For generalized records, such as training manuals and guidelines, the government's burden under Exemption 7 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7), of demonstrating that withheld materials were "complied for law enforcement purposes" can be satisfied without linking the documents to the enforcement of a particular statute. The government need only show a "rational nexus" between enforcement of federal law and a withheld document to invoke Exemption 7. In this case, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment for plaintiffs in an action seeking information from the FBI under FOIA. The panel remanded for further proceedings. View "ACLU of Northern California v. FBI" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment rulings regarding the County's violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1311(a) when it discharged pollutants from its wells into the Pacific Ocean. The panel held that the County was liable under the CWA because the County discharged pollutants from a point source, the pollutants were fairly traceable from the point source to a navigable water such that the discharge was the functional equivalent of a discharge into the navigable water, and the pollutant levels reaching navigable water were more than de minimis. Finally, the CWA provided fair notice of what was prohibited. View "Hawai'i Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui" on Justia Law