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

A housing loan, made by an employer to an employee as a key part of a compensation package, qualified as a non-consumer debt. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of creditor's motion to dismiss debtor's Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition for abuse under 11 U.S.C. 707(b)(1). As a preliminary matter, the panel held that the bankruptcy court's order denying creditor's motion to dismiss under section 707(b) was final and appealable. On the merits, the panel held that the bankruptcy court did not err by finding that the housing loan was a non-consumer debt. The panel agreed with the bankruptcy court that debtor incurred the housing loan primarily for a non-consumer purpose connected to furthering his career. View "Aspen Skiing Co. v. Cherrett" on Justia Law

The question of whether a particular constitutional right is "clearly established," as part of the qualified immunity analysis, is within the province of the judge. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's judgment in an action alleging that police officers used excessive force in a May Day protest. The panel held that the district court erred in submitting the "clearly established" inquiry to the jury. The panel held that the error was not harmless with respect to plaintiff's claims against Officer Fry and remanded to the district court with instructions for it to either employ a general verdict form, or submit special interrogatories to the jury regarding the disputed issues of material fact. The panel also held that the district court properly denied Officer Rees's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on qualified immunity where, based on the evidence presented at trial, the jury could have reasonably decided that Rees's use of the pepper spray against plaintiff was retaliatory. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees. View "Morales v. Fry" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit filed an order granting petitions for panel rehearing, denied petitions for rehearing en banc, withdrawing the opinion, and directing the filing of a new opinion.The panel also filed a new opinion, holding that the City of Los Angeles, which operates LAX, can require businesses at the airport to accept certain contractual conditions aimed at preventing service disruptions. One such condition, section 25, requires service providers to enter a "labor peace agreement" with any employee organization that requests one. The panel reasoned that the City was acting as a market participant when it added section 25 to its LAX licensing contract, and the preemption provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Railway Labor Act (RLA), and the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA), did not apply to state and local governmental actions taken as a market participant. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' preemption claim for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Furthermore, the district court did not err by denying leave to amend. View "Airline Service Providers Assoc. v. L.A. World Airports" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a petition for habeas relief challenging petitioner's conviction and death sentence for four counts of first degree murder. The panel held that, because petitioner failed to prove that any of the eyewitnesses provided material, false testimony or that the prosecution knew they committed perjury, the state court's rejection of petitioner's Mooney-Napue claims relating to the eyewitnesses was neither contrary to clearly established federal law nor objectively unreasonable; the state court reasonably denied petitioner's claim that certain testimony from non-eyewitnesses was false; the state court reasonably denied petitioner's claims under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); the state court reasonably denied petitioner's claims relating to the exposure of two eyewitnesses; and the court affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's habeas petition with respect to the Mesarosh claim, lineup card claim, Massiah claim, ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and cumulative error claim. View "Sanders v. Cullen" on Justia Law

A state court's alteration of the number of presentence credits to which a prisoner was entitled under California law constitutes a new, intervening judgment under Wentzell v. Neven, 674 F.3d 1124, 1125 (9th Cir. 2012). The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a California state prisoner's habeas corpus petition and remanded for further proceedings. In this case, the amendment to the judgment was clearly a new judgment under Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 341–42 (2010). The panel explained, so too, with the amendment to petitioner's presentence credits, and thus to his sentence. View "Gonzalez v. Sherman" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, three officers of Latino descent, filed suit against the City and Westminster Police Chiefs, alleging claims of discrimination and retaliation on the basis of race and religion. The jury awarded plaintiffs general and punitive damages, as well as attorney fees and costs. The panel held that the district court properly denied the City's motion for a new trial and renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of whether Plaintiff Flores failed to establish his claim of retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov't Code 12900–12996. In this case, the evidence at trial would permit a trier of fact to conclude he was subjected to adverse employment actions, that his protected conduct was a substantial motivating factor behind the adverse employment actions, and that the City's proffered reasons for its actions were pretextual. Accordingly, the panel affirmed as to this issue and also affirmed the jury's award of damages to Officer Flores on the FEHA retaliation claim. The panel further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in regard to evidentiary rulings, and the jury's verdict against two police chiefs for race discrimination was not fatally inconsistent. However, the panel vacated the judgment against Chief Mitchell Waller, who died before trial, and remanded to the district court to grant two officers leave to substitute the Chief's estate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1). View "Flores v. City of Westminster" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit vacated defendant's sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm. In this case, the district court treated defendant's prior conviction under Washington's second-degree assault statute, Revised Code of Washington section 9A.36.021, as a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. State court documents from the prior conviction demonstrated that defendant had pleaded guilty to violating section 9A.36.021(1)(c), assault with a deadly weapon. The panel held that this case was controlled by its recent decision in United States v. Robinson, 869 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2017), in which the panel held that section 9A.36.021 is not a crime of violence under the Sentencing Guidelines. The panel explained that section 9A.36.021 criminalizes conduct that does not meet the generic federal definition of crime of violence and was not divisible. The panel concluded that United States v. Jennen, 596 F.3d 594 (9th Cir. 2010), was overruled. Accordingly, the court remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Slade" on Justia Law

In this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of qualified immunity for the sheriff and affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by family members alleging that the sheriff used excessive force when he shot and killed Manuel Longoria. The panel held that the sheriff's credibility or the accuracy of his version of the facts was a central question that had to be answered by a jury. Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because there was a material issue of fact as to whether the sheriff violated Longoria's clearly established constitutional right. However, Longoria's family did not have standing to sue on their own behalves. Finally, the panel reversed the grant of summary judgment on plaintiffs' wrongful death claim under Arizona state law, because there was a material dispute of facts as to the use of reasonable deadly force. View "Longoria v. Pinal County" on Justia Law

An obstruction of justice enhancement under USSG 3C1.1 may be founded upon a finding of malingering. The Ninth Circuit affirmed defendant's sentence for receipt and distribution of child pornography. In this case, defendant had no legal or factual basis to challenge either the obstruction of justice or pornography distribution enhancements because defendant made no factual objections and thus there was no violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. View "United States v. Bonnett" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order dismissing two actions under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). On the merits, the panel affirmed the district court's order denying a preliminary injunction in appeal No. 15-16253, holding that Nationwide was unlikely to succeed on its claim that the First Amendment precludes California from requiring it to make certain truthful disclosures in its mail solicitations. The panel vacated the district court's order denying a preliminary injunction in appeal No. 15-16220, holding that Nationwide was likely to succeed on its claim that the Dormant Commerce Clause precludes California from making in-state incorporation a prerequisite of licensure to engage in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the panel remanded both cases for further proceedings. View "Nationwide Biweekly Admin. v. Owen" on Justia Law