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

Plaintiff Jesus Ramirez came to the United States from El Salvador in 1999 and was granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in 2001. In 2012, plaintiff married a United States citizen and the couple sought lawful permanent resident status for Ramirez. The court held that a TPS designee provides a pathway for Ramirez to obtain lawful permanent resident status under the adjustment statute; under 8 U.S.C. 1254a(f)(4), an alien afforded TPS is deemed to be in lawful status as a nonimmigrant—and has thereby satisfied the requirements for becoming a nonimmigrant, including inspection and admission—for purposes of adjustment of status under section 1255; and thus the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Ramirez. View "Ramirez v. Brown" on Justia Law

Larry and Kari Miller, both Arizona domiciliaries, owned a cooperative apartment held in each of their names, as husband and wife. First Community Bank, a judgment creditor of Larry Miller, obtained a lien against the couple's co-op. Under Arizona law, the co-op would be treated as community property. Under California law, the co-op would not constitute community property because it was not acquired by the couple while they were domiciled in California. The court held that while the co-op owned by the couple did not come within the definition of community property in California, as that term is defined in Section 760 of the California Family Code, it does come within the definition of a tenancy-in-common. The court explained that the interests of a co-tenant in such tenancies, which are presumed to be held in equal shares, are subject to the enforcement of a judgment lien. In this case, applying California's choice-of-law rules, the court held that California law governs, and that the co-op would be treated as a tenancy-in-common, as defined in Section 685 of the California Civil Code, making Larry Miller's interest in the co-op subject to enforcement of the judgment lien. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's reversal of the bankruptcy court's summary judgment for the creditor, remanding for further proceedings. View "In re Miller" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, parents of a student at the District, filed suit alleging claims that the District violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. Plaintiffs argued that the district court misapplied the statute of limitations in 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(3)(C) to their claims that the District failed to identify their child's disability or assess him for autism in 2006 and 2007. The court concluded, as a question of first impression, that the IDEA's statute of limitations requires courts to bar only claims brought more than two years after the parents or local educational agency "knew or should have known" about the actions forming the basis of the complaint. In this case, the district court barred all claims "occurring" more than two years before plaintiffs filed their due process complaint. Therefore, the court remanded so that the district court could determine when plaintiffs knew or should have known about the actions forming the basis of their complaint. View "Avila v. Spokane School District 81" on Justia Law

Petitioner, through Attorney Larry Klayman, filed the instant emergency petition asking the court to issue a writ of mandamus to the district court for its failure sua sponte to admit Klayman pro hac vice. The court rejected petitioner's claims of changed circumstances: the district court's refusal to dismiss all charges against petitioner in light of the issuance of a report that may cast doubt on the credibility of one of the government's potential witnesses; a hearing at which defense counsel agreed to strike the district court's husband, Brian Rutledge, who is a deputy district attorney in Clark County, from its potential witness list; and the lack of federal criminal experience of petitioner's current counsel of choice, Bret Whipple. The court held that the district court's failure sua sponte to grant Klayman pro hac vice status as of March 2017 was neither an abuse of discretion nor clear error. The court concluded that the petition and reply contain patently false assertions and lack the most basic of due diligence in fact checking. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for writ of mandamus. View "Bundy v. US District Court for the District of Nevada, Las Vegas" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a tattoo artist and long-time resident of Long Beach, filed suit against the City, alleging that the City's zoning ordinances violated the First Amendment by unreasonably restricting his ability to open and operate a tattoo shop in Long Beach. The district court entered judgment for the City. The court concluded that the district court inaccurately narrowed plaintiff's claims in its order by framing plaintiff's challenge as only to the conditional use permit (CUP) requirement, when plaintiff also challenged the location restrictions on tattoo shops; ignoring plaintiff's claim that the CUP process vests unbridled discretion in the City; and stating that plaintiff's claim only concerned his desire to open a shop at 316 Elm Street in the East Village Arts District, when this was just one of three locations that plaintiff initially identified in his letter to the City. The court held that plaintiff has standing to bring a facial first amendment challenge to the City's zoning ordinances where he was not required to first apply for, and then be denied, a CUP to bring this claim under a permitting system that allegedly gives City officials unfettered discretion over protected activity; plaintiff has standing to bring an as-applied First Amendment challenge to the City's zoning ordinances where it appeared likely that the City would take action against plaintiff if he opened a tattoo shop without a CUP; plaintiff raised a cognizable claim that the City's zoning ordinances constituted an unlawful prior restraint on speech; and plaintiff raised a cognizable claim that the City's ordinances constituted unlawful time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Real v. City of Long Beach" on Justia Law

Defendant, a citizen and national of Mexico, appealed his conviction of two counts of aggravated identity theft and two counts of attempted illegal reentry. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's third request for new counsel; the district court did not abuse its discretion by ruling that defendant had breached the terms of his 2008 plea agreement by unlawfully returning to the United States in 2011; the district court did not err by ruling that defendant had breached his plea agreement at a pretrial motions-in-limine hearing; the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to submit the issue of breach to a jury; the district court did not err by allowing the government to reindict defendant on the 2008 charges without first seeking a judicial finding of breach; the district court did not err by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing sua sponte; the district court did not commit errors that cumulatively rendered defendant's trial fundamentally unfair; the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence a Mexican birth certificate that the government claimed belonged to defendant; the district court did not err by failing to hold a hearing on potential jury bias after defendant made an obscene gesture towards a juror; the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the government to elicit testimony about the witnesses' testimony in unrelated prior proceedings; the district court did not plainly err by allowing the government to question defendant about the credibility of a witness; the district court did not abuse its discretion by sentencing defendant to 184 months in prison; and the district court lacked authority to order defendant to use the name "Ramiro Plascencia-Orozco." Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's March 30, 2015 order. The court affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Plascencia-Orozco" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of ten different state criminal charges, appealed the district court's interlocutory orders requiring an Arizona state corrections official to reimburse petitioner for deposition expenses incurred in his pending habeas proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Determining that it had interlocutory jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, the court concluded that the district court could not order a state to reimburse an indigent habeas petitioner for deposition expenses in a section 2254 habeas proceeding when, as here, the state did not request the deposition. Accordingly, the court reversed the relevant orders and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether petitioner could obtain reimbursement under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA), 18 U.S.C. 3006A, from the federal government. View "Copeland v. Ryan" on Justia Law

M.C. filed suit under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400(d)(1)(A), alleging that the district violated the IDEA by (1) failing to adequately document the services provided by a teacher of the visually impaired (TVI), (2) failing to specify the assistive technology (AT) devices provided, and (3) failing to file a response to the due process complaint. The court concluded that the district's failure to adequately document the TVI services and AT devices offered to M.C. violated the IDEA and denied M.C. a free appropriate public education (FAPE); these procedural violations deprived M.C.'s mother of her right to participate in the individualized education program (IEP) process and made it impossible for her to enforce the IEP and evaluate whether the services M.C. received were adequate; and, at the very least, plaintiffs were entitled to have the district draft a proper IEP and receive compensatory education he would have occupied but for the school's violations of the IDEA. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment and remanded. View "M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High School District" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, twenty individuals who purchased first generation four stroke outboard motors (the Class Motors), filed suit against defendants, alleging that the Class Motors contained an inherent design defect that caused severe, premature corrosion in the motors’ dry exhaust system. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants knew of the defect prior to the sales of the Class Motors to plaintiffs, and that the defect posed an unreasonable safety hazard. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's grant of YMC's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and its grant of YMUS's fifth motion to dismiss plaintiffs' consumer fraud claims. The court concluded that the district court lacked general jurisdiction over YMC because YMC does not have sufficient contacts with California; plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to make out a prima facie case that YMC and YMUS were alter egos; and even assuming that YMUS's contacts could be imputed to YMC, this does not, on its own, suffice to establish general jurisdiction. The court also concluded that the district court lacked specific jurisdiction over YMC because plaintiffs do not allege any actions that YMC "purposefully directed" at California. Even assuming that some standard of agency continued to be relevant to the existence of specific jurisdiction pursuant to Daimler AG v. Bauman, plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie case for any such agency relationship. Finally, the court concluded that plaintiffs failed to plead a prima facie case of consumer fraud where, although plaintiffs adequately pleaded defendants' presale knowledge of the defect, plaintiffs failed to plead the existence of an unreasonable safety hazard. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Williams v. Yamaha Motor Corp." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the FTC's successful enforcement action against debtor and his former company, Commerce Planet, for violation of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a). On appeal, debtor challenged the district court's order reversing the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment and remanding for further fact-finding. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 because the district court's order did not end the litigation on the merits and leave nothing for the district court to do but execute the judgment; the court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1292 because the district court did not certify its decision for interlocutory review; the court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 158(d)(1) where the district court's ruling did not end the discrete proceeding before it, namely the FTC's adversary action; and the court explained that Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank compelled the conclusion that rulings in bankruptcy cases that neither end a case nor a discrete dispute, but rather remand for further fact-finding on a central issue, were not final for purposes of section 158(d). Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction. View "Gugliuzza v. FTC" on Justia Law