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

The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of disability benefits and held that the ALJ did not follow the appropriate methodology for weighing a treating physician's medical opinion. In this case, the panel explained that the ALJ should have credited the treating physician's opinion and found that plaintiff was disabled, and the district court erred by developing its own reasons to discount the treating physician's opinion, rather than reviewing the ALJ's reasons for substantial evidence. The panel held that substantial evidence did not support the ALJ's finding that plaintiff's symptoms were not as severe as she testified, particularly in light of the extensive medical record objectively verifying her claims. Because each of the "credit-as-true" factors in Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 1020 (9th Cir. 2014), was satisfied, remand for the calculation and award of benefits was warranted. View "Trevizo v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of relators' qui tam action alleging that the College violated the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733, by knowingly providing false progress reports on students in order to keep grant monies. The panel held that the Tribe is not a "person" under the FCA. The panel remanded for further jurisdictional factfinding on whether the College was an arm of the Tribe that shares the Tribe's status for purposes of the FCA. View "United States ex rel Cain v. Salish Kootenai College, Inc." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit filed an amended opinion affirming the denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment. The panel held that Infinity's attorney, who sued for violation of a bankruptcy automatic stay, was not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for acts other than drafting the order at the judge's request—an issue the court need not reach because the order was never filed. View "Burton v. Infinity Capital Management" on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision, 11 U.S.C. 362, does not operate to prevent the government's collection of criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA). In this case, debtor pleaded guilty to embezzlement and theft of labor union assets, for which she served eighteen months in prison and agreed to pay $193,337.33 in criminal restitution. After debtor's bankruptcy filing, the government offset payments made as income to debtor against the balance of the restitution debt. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy appellate panel's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of debtor's motion to hold the government in contempt for violating the automatic stay through its collection efforts. View "Partida v. DOJ" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment for defendants in this trademark infringement suit regarding defendants' use of Marketquest's "All-in-One" and "The Write Choice" trademarks. The panel held that Marketquest's pleading was adequate to support a cause of action for trademark infringement under a reverse confusion theory of likely confusion; consideration of the intent factor in the likelihood of confusion analysis varies with the type of confusion being considered; the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendants based upon the fair use defense regarding their use of "All-in-One;" and the district court erred by applying the fair use analysis to defendants' use of "The Write Choice" after determining that Marketquest presented no evidence of likely confusion. View "Marketquest Group, Inc. v. BIC Corp." on Justia Law

Relators filed suit under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729-33, alleging that Gilead made false statements about its compliance with FDA regulations regarding certain HIV drugs. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of relators' complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The panel held that relators stated a plausible claim by alleging factually false certification, implied false certification, and promissory fraud. Furthermore, relators adequately plead scienter, materiality, and that Gilead submitted false claims. The panel reversed the dismissal of the retaliation claim, holding that the Second Amended Complaint sufficiently alleged facts showing that Relator Jeff Campie had an objectively reasonable, good faith belief that Gilead was possibly committing fraud against the government; sufficient facts to show Gilead knew of Campie's protected activity; and causation. View "United States ex rel. Campie v. Gilead Sciences, Inc." on Justia Law

A petitioner is entitled to use the full one-year statute-of-limitations period for the filing of his state and federal habeas petitions and he need not anticipate the occurrence of circumstances that would otherwise deprive him of the full 365 days that Congress afforded him for the preparation and filing of his petitions. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order dismissing the petition for habeas relief in this case and remanded for further proceedings. The panel held that it was improper for the district court to fault the petitioner for filing his state petition for postconviction relief late in the statute-of-limitations period in reliance on his having a full year to file both his state and federal petitions, as promised by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2244. It was obvious in this instance that petitioner was diligent after the extraordinary circumstance had ended. Therefore, petitioner was entitled to equitable tolling from the time he requested his prison account certificate until he received that certification. View "Grant v. Swarthout" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief, in which plaintiff sought a custody redetermination as he awaits the outcome of administrative proceedings to determine whether he has a reasonable fear of returning to his native country of El Salvador. The panel held that, because plaintiff's reinstated removal order remains administratively final, he was detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1231(a); section 1226(a) has no application in this case; and thus plaintiff was not entitled to a bond hearing. View "Padilla-Ramirez v. Bible" on Justia Law

By enacting the Homeland Security Act (HSA) and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), Congress did not terminate Paragraph 24A of the Flores Settlement with respect to bond hearings for unaccompanied minors. This appeal stemmed from a settlement agreement between the plaintiff class and the federal government that established a nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of minors in the custody of the INS. Paragraph 24A of the Flores Agreement provides that a "minor in deportation proceedings shall be afforded a bond redetermination hearing before an immigration judge." The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of plaintiffs' motion to enforce the Flores Agreement, holding that nothing in the text, structure, or purpose of the HSA or TVPRA renders continued compliance with Paragraph 24A, as it applies to unaccompanied minors, "impermissible." View "Flores v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of defendants' motions for sentence reductions under United States Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782 and 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2). The panel held that USSG 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) does not impermissibly conflict with 28 U.S.C. 991(b) and defendants have not shown that section 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) violates equal protection or due process. Under section 1B1.10(b)(2)(A), defendants who originally had lower sentences may be awarded the same sentences in section 3582(c)(2) proceedings as offenders who originally had higher sentences. Sentences that were initially tailored to avoid unwarranted disparities and to account for individualized circumstances will now converge at the low end of the amended guideline range. The panel explained that this anomalous result did not create an irreconcilable conflict with section 991(b). Furthermore, while section 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) will sometimes produce unequal and arguably unfair results, defendants have not shown that it fails rational basis review. As to due process, defendants' failure to receive a benefit from Amendment 782 was not a result of a retroactive deprivation of a pre-existing benefit. Rather, it was the result of a prospective grant of a limited benefit. View "United States v. Padilla-Diaz" on Justia Law