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

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal where defendant was convicted of obstruction of justice. The basis for defendant's prosecution was his failure to include material information about the use of force upon an inmate in several reports documenting the encounter with the inmate. The panel reviewed the case de novo and applied the federal nexus standard established in Fowler v. United States, 563 U.S. 668 (2011), and held that there was insufficient evidence for any rational juror to find that it was reasonably likely that defendant's reports would have reached federal officers. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), 38 U.S.C. 4311(a), arguing that when he returned from service in the U.S. Air Force, FedEx improperly paid him a $7,400 bonus instead of the $17,700 bonus he would have earned had he not served. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision awarding plaintiff the higher signing bonus and attorney's fees. The panel held that arbitration was not required in this case; the district court properly used the reasonable certainty test to determine that plaintiff showed by a preponderance of the evidence that his military service was a "substantial or motivating factor" to cause an adverse employment action; the district court properly relied on the the escalator principle, which provides that a returning service member should not be removed from the progress of his career trajectory; the district court did not clearly err in finding that plaintiff was reasonably certain to have achieved the higher bonus status had he not left for his military service; the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff's bonus was, in part, a seniority-based benefit; and even if the signing bonus were not a seniority-based benefit, Section 4316 still would not bar plaintiff's claim. View "Huhmann v. Federal Express Corp." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to PG&E and denial of summary judgment to EcoRights with respect to a stormwater pathway. The panel held that the district court erred in applying the antiduplication provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 1006(a), with respect to the stormwater pathway; the absence of a Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., permit requirement did not trigger RCRA's anti-duplication provision; and PG&E failed to identify any legal requirements under municipal permits applicable to it and inconsistent with EcoRights' requested RCRA relief. The panel remanded for the district court to consider EcoRights' arguments with respect to the stormwater pathway that the relevant wastes were "solid wastes" and that PG&E's actions presented an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment under RCRA. Finally, the panel affirmed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment as to the tire-tracking pathway. View "Ecological Rights Foundation v. PG&E" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law, alleging excessive use of force when a police officer shot and killed her son, Connor Zion. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims. In regard to the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim, the Ninth Circuit held that Officer Higgins did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment by emptying his weapon at Zion. However, the head stomps were different because a jury could reasonably find that Higgins knew or easily could have determined that he had already rendered Zion harmless. If so, a reasonable jury could also conclude that Higgins was acting out of anger or emotion rather than any legitimate law enforcement purpose. The panel reversed as to the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim. The panel affirmed as to the municipal liability claims and remanded the remaining claims for the district court to consider in the first instance. View "Zion v. County of Orange" on Justia Law

Following Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014), the panel held that while a theory of individualized targeting may remain relevant to the minimum contacts inquiry, it will not, on its own, support the exercise of specific jurisdiction, absent compliance with what Walden requires. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of a copyright infringement action based on lack of personal jurisdiction over defendant, a United Kingdom limited company. In this case, the panel applied the "effects" test and held that defendant committed an intentional act, but did not expressly aim its intentional act at the forum state. The panel held that the district court properly declined to exercise jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2). View "Axiom Foods, Inc. v. Acerchem Int'l, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of appellate attorney's fees under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1132(g)(1). The panel held that, pursuant to Sokol v. Bernstein, 812 F.2d 559, 561 (9th Cir. 1987), a court must consider the entire course of the litigation when analyzing a party's request for appellate attorney's fees within the Hummell v. S.E. Rykoff & Co., 634 F.2d 446 (9th Cir. 1980), rubric. Accordingly, the panel remanded to the district court for calculation of a reasonable award of fees and costs. View "Micha v. Sun Life Assurance of Canada" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction for selling and possessing with the intent to sell over 446 grams of ethylone. The panel held that the DEA properly exercised its limited powers as defined by Congress to temporarily list butylone and its isomers, including ethylone; defendant had public notice that distributing Ecstasy in the form of ethylone could result in criminal sanctions; the rule of lenity did not apply in defendant's case; the DEA's decision to temporarily schedule ethylone was authorized pursuant to its temporary scheduling power and a clear directive from Congress; and defendant's plea agreement clearly and unambiguously waived his right to appeal the very sentencing issue he raised. Accordingly, the court dismissed defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, affirmed the conviction, and dismissed defendant's challenge to his sentence. View "United States v. Kelly" on Justia Law

This petition for writ of mandamus arose in the context of a contested trademark action initiated by San Diego Comic Convention (SDCC) against petitioners, over the use of the mark "comic-con" or "comic con." The Ninth Circuit granted the petition and vacated the district court's orders directing petitioners to prominently post on their social medial outlets its order prohibiting comments about the litigation on social media, dubbing this posting a "disclaimer." The panel held that the orders at issue were unconstitutional prior restraints on speech because they prohibit speech that poses neither a clear and present danger nor a serious and imminent threat to SDCC's interest in a fair trial. The panel explained that the well-established doctrines on jury selection and the court's inherent management powers provide an alternative, less restrictive, means of ensuring a fair trial. View "Dan Farr Productions v. USDC-CASD" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order affirming the denial of supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff suffers from fibromyalgia. In July 2012, the SSA issued Social Security Ruling (SSR) 12-2P, a ruling that establishes that fibromyalgia may be a severe medical impairment for purposes of determining disability, and provided guidelines for the proper evaluation of the disease. The panel held that the ALJ, SSA Appeals Council, and the district court failed to heed the instructions of those rulings, and instead analyzed plaintiff's symptoms and rejected her claim without considering the unique characteristics of fibromyalgia, the principal source of her disability. The panel remanded with instructions for the district court to remand the case to the agency for the calculation and award of benefits. View "Revels v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's order affirming the Commissioner's denial of plaintiff's application for social security disability insurance (SSDI) benefits. The panel held that the ALJ erred in its assessment by not calling a medical advisor at the hearing; by giving too little weight to the observations of plaintiff's fiancé; and by finding that plaintiff was only partially credible. The panel reversed on these grounds and remanded. In a separately filed memorandum disposition, the panel rejected plaintiff's other challenges and affirmed that portion of the ALJ's decision. View "Diedrich v. Berryhill" on Justia Law