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

Defendant was convicted of wire fraud, mail fraud, false declaration before a court, escape, and contempt. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion for a new trial where defendant showed a lack of diligence by waiting to obtain the new evidence at issue; there was sufficient evidence to sustain defendant's mail fraud, wire fraud, and false declaration convictions; defendant was not deprived of a fair trial because prison officials disorganized his legal materials during trial when they moved him to a different location and because two jurors gave untruthful responses about their criminal history during voir dire; defendant's right to a fair trial was not violated where, under Faretta v. California, a trial court is permitted, but not required, to terminate an incorrigible pro se defendant's self-representation; the district court did not deny defendant a fair trial by allowing him to represent himself for the duration of the proceeding; and the district court did not err in denying defendant a competency hearing. View "United States v. Brugnara" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court's opinion in CRST Van Expedited Inc. v. E.E.O.C., 136 S. Ct. 1642, 1646 (2016), effectively overruled Branson v Nott's holding that when a defendant wins because the action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction he is never a prevailing party. In this case, Amphastar filed a qui tam action against Aventis under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C 3730, alleging that Aventis obtained an illegal monopoly over the drug enoxaparin and then knowingly overcharged the United States. The district court dismissed the suit based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit held that Amphastar's allegations were based on publicly disclosed information, and it lacked the direct and independent knowledge needed to be an original source. Therefore, the panel upheld the district court's judgment on the merits. However, the panel held that the district court erroneously concluded that it could not award attorneys' fees, because the FCA's fee-shifting provision contained an independent grant of subject matter jurisdiction and because a party who wins a lawsuit on a non-merits issue is a "prevailing party." The panel remanded for resolution of the attorneys' fees issue. View "Amphastar Pharmaceuticals v. Aventis Pharma" on Justia Law

California Insurance Code 10110.6(a) has voided provisions conferring discretionary authority to Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., plan administrators such as Aetna. Plaintiff challenged Aetna's decision to terminate her long-term disability benefits under a plan created by Boeing. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's holding that California's statute did not apply to Boeing's plan and upholding Aetna's denial of benefits to plaintiff. The Ninth Circuit held that section 10110.6(a) was saved from ERISA preemption because the statute is directed toward entities engaged in insurance and substantially affects the risk-pooling arrangement between the insurer and the insured. The Ninth Circuit also held that section 10110.6 applied in this case because Boeing's policy renewed after section 10110.6's effective date. View "Orzechowski v. The Boeing Company Non-Union Long-Term Disability Plan" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit previously affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing, but the panel remanded for consideration of his claims of ineffective assistance at trial and on direct appeal. After the district court denied these claims, petitioner sought review from the Ninth Circuit.In this appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that it need not consider petitioner's argument that the district court erred in determining that some claims were outside the scope of the Ninth Circuit's remand, because that determination does not affect the scope of the issues before the panel here; counsel was not ineffective for failing to adequately present an overall defense theory; counsel need not explore the possibility of a mental incapacity defense of impulsivity where such a defense would have been counterproductive; and petitioner's claim that trial counsel was ineffective during voir dire in failing to discover that a juror had been the victim of a violent crime that would have disqualified that juror was also without merit. The panel denied a certificate of appealability as to all other claims and affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Greenway v. Ryan" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief, holding that RFC was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claim challenging the City of Oakland's ordinance regulating unattended donation collection boxes (UDCBs) because the ordinance was content neutral and survived intermediate scrutiny. Assuming that charitable solicitations are protected speech, the Ordinance was content neutral to the extent it regulated speech or expressive activity at all. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the Ordinance plainly served important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of protected speech; was sufficiently narrowly tailored and left alternative avenues of communication for RFC to express its message; and, because RFC did not demonstrate that it was likely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claim, the court need not address RFC's irreparable harm argument. View "Recycle for Change v. City of Oakland" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of plaintiff's application for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(A), holding that the Commissioner's litigation position was substantially justified. Plaintiff had successfully challenged the Commissioner's denial of her application for disability benefits and obtained a remand of her claim to the agency for further consideration. In this case, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Commissioner's position was substantially justified because the Commissioner's opposition to remand the claim on the merits was reasonable, even though it turned out to be unsuccessful. Finally, plaintiff's new evidence, though sufficient in the end to persuade the district court to remand the case, did not make that the only reasonable result. View "Decker v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of plaintiff's application for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412(d)(1)(A). Plaintiff presented new evidence to the Appeals Council after she lost her claim for social security disability benefits before the ALJ. The district court remanded for further consideration and the Commissioner did not appeal. The district court denied plaintiff's request for attorney's fees, concluding that the Commissioner was substantially justified in arguing that the new evidence did not undermine the ALJ's denial of benefits. The issue that was before the district court on the original merits appeal of the ALJ's denial of benefits was not whether there was other evidence that could support a denial of benefits to plaintiff, or whether the Commissioner's denial of benefits might ultimately be sustained. The Ninth Circuit explained that it was whether the actual decision that was made by the ALJ could be affirmed at that time by the district court in light of the new evidence in the record. In this case, it should have been plain that it could not have been affirmed, because the ALJ's decision failed to provide a reason that was still viable for giving the opinion of the treating doctor little weight. The doctor's final report, if credited, would have undermined the ALJ's original finding that plaintiff was not disabled. Even if the Commissioner might have had a legitimate basis for opposing plaintiff's claim, she did not have a basis to oppose remand and to argue that the district court should affirm the existing ALJ opinion. View "Gardner v. Berryhill" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit withdrew its previous opinion and dissent, filing a superseding opinion and dissent. The Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment for plaintiffs in their suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq., against the DOD, seeking the names of foreign students and instructors at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. The Ninth Circuit held that the disclosure of the names would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Applying a two-step test to determine whether disclosing the names would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under FOIA Exemption 6, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the affidavits and other evidence submitted by the DOD were sufficient to carry the DOD's burden to establish that disclosure of the requested information gave rise to a nontrivial risk of harassment and mistreatment. Furthermore, the public interest did not outweigh the serious risks that would result from disclosure where any incremental value stemming from the disclosure of the names was small. View "Cameranesi v. US Department of Defense" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit filed an order granting in part and denying in part a petition for panel rehearing, and denying on behalf of the court a petition for rehearing en banc. In 2016, the court filed an opinion affirming defendant's conviction and sentence for multiple counts of conspiracy, armed bank robbery, and use of a firearm during a crime of violence. The Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing, in light of the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Dean v. United States. The Court in Dean said that nothing in 18 U.S.C. 924(c) restricts the authority conferred on sentencing courts by 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and the related provisions to consider a sentence imposed under section 924(c) when calculating a just sentence for the predicate count. View "United States v. Thomas, Jr." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit certified the following questions of state law to the Arizona Supreme Court: 1. Whether Arizona equitable indemnity law incorporates Section 78 of the Restatement (First) of Restitution; and if so, 2. Whether equitable indemnity under Section 78 requires that the indemnity plaintiff's liability to the underlying plaintiff have been coextensive with the indemnity defendant's liability to the underlying plaintiff. View "KnightBrook Insurance v. Payless Car Rental System" on Justia Law