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

The value of the property or amount of indebtedness are not the amounts in controversy when a complaint seeks only a temporary stay of foreclosure pending review of a loan modification application pursuant to the California Homeowners Bill of Rights (HBOR). In this case, the Ninth Circuit held that because SPS did not establish that removal was proper, the district court should have granted Corral's motion to remand and was without subject matter jurisdiction to consider SPS's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Accordingly, the panel reversed the district court's denial of the motion to remand, vacated the order granting SPS's motion to dismiss, and remanded to state court. View "Corral v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that VSI's practices violated state law and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Ninth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the district court's denial of VSI's motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute, because under the terms of the state statute, such a denial in a case deemed to be filed in the public interest was not immediately appealable. The panel held that it did have jurisdiction over VSI's appeal of the district court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration and affirmed the denial because this was not a private contract subject to the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act. The panel remanded for further proceedings. View "Breazeale v. Victim Services" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging the NMFS's decision allowing a Hawaii-based swordfish fishery to increase its fishing efforts, which may result in the unintentional deaths of endangered sea turtles. Plaintiffs also challenged the FWS's decision to issue "special purpose" permit to the NMFS, which authorizes the fishery to incidentally kill migratory birds. The Ninth Circuit held that the FWS's grant of an incidental take permit to the NMFS in reliance on the special purpose permit provision in 50 C.F.R. 21.27 was arbitrary and capricious because the FWS's interpretation of section 21.27 did not conform to either the Migratory Bird Treaty Act's (MBTA) conservation intent or the plain language of the regulation. Therefore, the panel reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment affirming the FWS's decision to issue the permit. The panel also held that NMFS's 2012 BiOp's on jeopardy finding as to the loggerhead sea turtles was arbitrary and capricious because the scientific data suggested that the loggerhead population would significantly decline, and the agency failed to sufficiently explain the discrepancy in its opinion and the record evidence. Therefore, the panel reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment upholding this portion of the BiOp. The panel otherwise affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. View "Turtle Island Restoration Network v. DOC" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit certified the following question of law to the Nevada Supreme Court: Under Nevada law, if a plaintiff has filed suit against an insurer seeking damages based on a separate judgment against its insured, does the insurer's liability expire when the statute of limitations on the judgment runs, notwithstanding that the suit was filed within the six-year life of the judgment? View "Nalder v. United Automobile Insurance Co." on Justia Law

President Trump's issuance of Proclamation 9645 entitled "Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public Safety Threats" violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and exceeded the scope of his delegated authority. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order enjoining enforcement of the Proclamation's section 2(a), (b), (c), (e), (g), and (h), holding that the Government's interpretation of 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) not only upended the carefully crafted immigration scheme Congress has embodied in the INA, but it deviated from the text of the statute, legislative history, and prior executive practice as well; the President did not satisfy the critical prerequisite Congress attached to his suspension authority: Before blocking entry, he must first make a legally sufficient finding that the entry of the specified individuals would be detrimental to the interests of the United States; the Proclamation conflicted with the INA's prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas; and the President was without a separate source of constitutional authority to issue the Proclamation. However, the panel limited the scope of the preliminary injunction to foreign nationals who have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. View "Hawaii v. Trump" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction in an action brought by civil detainees confined in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities within the Tucson Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol. The detainees alleged that they were subjected to inhumane and punitive treatment. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction requiring that defendants provide detainees with mats and blankets after 12 hours, and properly applied precedent such that neither side has shown that the limited preliminary injunction was illogical, implausible, or without support in the record. In this case, the district court properly read and applied Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). The panel also held that plaintiffs have not shown that the district court abused its discretion in issuing only a limited preliminary injunction. View "Doe v. Kelly" on Justia Law

The Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. 7, does not grant arbitrators the power to compel the production of documents from third parties outside of a hearing. In this case, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition to enforce a subpoena issued prehearing by an arbitration panel against a company that was not a party to the arbitration. View "Vividus, LLC v. Express Scripts, Inc." on Justia Law

Under the "economic reality" test, cosmetology and hair design students were not employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) even though they alleged that much of their time was spent in menial and unsupervised work. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant, holding that a primary beneficiary analysis, rather than a test formulated by the Department of Labor, applied in the context of student workers. The panel reasoned that the students, not defendant's schools, were the primary beneficiaries of their own labors. The panel also held that the students were not employees entitled to be paid under Nevada or California law. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by striking declarations as sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. View "Benjamin v. B&H Education, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed defendant's convictions for two counts of First Degree Murder, two counts of Murder of a Federal Employee, and two counts of Use of a Firearm in Relation to a Crime of Violence Resulting in Death. The panel held that the government overstepped in moving to excuse second defense counsel; the district court erred in allowing the government to use criminal profile testimony as substantive evidence of guilt; the district court erred in admitting other act evidence; the district court was not required to declare a mistrial upon elicitation of prejudicial testimony; the district court properly excluded evidence of third party culpability; and the panel reassigned the case to preserve the appearance of justice. Accordingly, the panel remanded for a new trial after being reassigned. View "United States v. Wells" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's denial of asylum to petitioner, a citizen of China, who sought relief based on his political opinion. The panel held that the evidence before the IJ and BIA compelled the conclusion, at the very least, that Chinese authorities persecuted petitioner because of an anti-eminent domain political opinion they imputed to him. Accordingly, the panel vacated the denial of asylum and remanded to the Attorney General to exercise his discretion whether to grant asylum. View "Song v. Sessions" on Justia Law