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

In the case involving Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., its CEO, and its Vice President, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a securities fraud class-action case brought by lead plaintiff Andrew R. Zenoff. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act and the SEC's Rule 10b-5 by falsely claiming to have discovered a "cure" for COVID-19, resulting in a temporary surge in Sorrento's stock prices.The court held that the defendants' representations about the potential COVID-19 cure, when read in context, were not materially false or misleading. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to support the requisite strong inference of scienter, or intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud. The court noted that Sorrento's financial difficulties and the need to raise capital did not provide a strong inference of scienter. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not provide evidence of specific stock sales or purchases that would indicate an intent to manipulate stock prices.The court found that the plaintiff's allegations did not meet the specific requirements for claims of securities fraud under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, which include demonstrating a material misrepresentation or omission, scienter, a connection between the misrepresentation or omission and the purchase or sale of a security, reliance upon the misrepresentation or omission, economic loss, and loss causation. The court concluded that the defendants' initial enthusiasm about the potential cure was not inherently false or misleading at the time, and the plaintiff failed to establish a strong inference of scienter. As a result, the court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the case. View "ZENOFF V. SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC., ET AL" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed Jose Jimenez-Chaidez's conviction for knowingly importing cocaine and methamphetamine, vacated his sentence, and remanded the case for resentencing.The court's decision had several key components. First, it approved the lower court's decision to admit evidence of Jimenez's prior drug smuggling activities, as it demonstrated his knowledge and intent, and was not unduly prejudicial. Second, the court found no abuse of discretion by the district court in allowing an FBI agent to testify as a lay witness about extracting data from a cellphone, holding that specialized knowledge was not required for this testimony.The court did, however, find error in the district court's failure to make an explicit reliability finding regarding an expert's testimony about the value of the drugs found in Jimenez's vehicle. Nevertheless, it determined this error was harmless.Lastly, the court vacated Jimenez's sentence and remanded for resentencing, in line with recent authority guiding the process for conducting a mitigating role inquiry under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The court clarified that the relevant comparison for this inquiry is to other participants in the defendant's crime, not to typical defendants who commit similar crimes. View "USA V. JIMENEZ-CHAIDEZ" on Justia Law

The case involves Larry Grant and his daughter P.C. who filed an appeal against the City of Long Beach and Gabriela Rodriguez, alleging that their constitutional rights to association and due process were violated. They also raised several state-law claims. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the appellants’ opening brief was riddled with misrepresentations and fabricated case law. The brief did not comply with the Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8)(A) as it did not contain the appellants’ contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.The court noted that the brief cited cases that were misrepresented or did not exist, and did not provide coherent explanations of how the accurately cited cases supported the appellants’ claims. The appellants also failed to file a reply brief. The court observed that the magnitude of the appellants’ citations to apparently fabricated cases necessitated a questioning of their counsel about these cases, but the counsel did not acknowledge the fabrications.Given the extent of non-compliance with the Court rules, the Ninth Circuit court decided to strike the appellants’ brief and dismiss the appeal. The court holds that it is crucial for parties to present reliable and understandable support for their claims to ensure fair consideration of cases on appeal. View "Grant v. City of Long Beach" on Justia Law

This case revolves around the fatal shooting of Daniel Hernandez by Officer Toni McBride of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). Hernandez's estate and family members filed a lawsuit against McBride, the LAPD, and the City of Los Angeles, alleging violations of Hernandez's Fourth Amendment rights, the family members' Fourteenth Amendment rights, and several state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that a reasonable jury could find that the force McBride used in her final two shots was excessive, but she was entitled to qualified immunity because she did not violate clearly established law. The court explained that while the Fourth Amendment excessive force claim could proceed to trial, McBride was protected by qualified immunity because no prior case law established that her conduct was unlawful.The court also dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment claim, stating that plaintiffs failed to show that McBride acted with a purpose to harm without regard to legitimate law enforcement objectives. The court further ruled that the Monell claim against the City of Los Angeles and the LAPD failed because even if there was an underlying constitutional violation, plaintiffs failed to provide any basis for holding the City and LAPD liable for McBride’s actions.However, the court reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs' state law claims for assault, wrongful death, and violation of the Bane Act, determining that the reasonableness of McBride's final shots presented a question for a trier of fact. The court thus sent these claims back to the district court for further proceedings. View "In re Estate of Hernandez v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

The case involved a lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly known as Facebook) by a class of advertisers who claimed that Meta misrepresented the "Potential Reach" of advertisements on its platforms. The plaintiffs alleged that Meta falsely claimed that Potential Reach was an estimate of people, when in fact, it was an estimate of accounts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order certifying one class of advertisers (the damages class) who sought compensation for fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment. The court stated that the misrepresentation was a common issue for the class and that the district court properly determined that the element of justifiable reliance was capable of classwide resolution.However, the court vacated the district court's order certifying another class of advertisers (the injunction class) who sought injunctive relief. The court asked the lower court to reconsider whether the named plaintiff, Cain Maxwell, had Article III standing to seek an injunction. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "DZ Reserve v. Meta Platforms, Inc." on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the petitioner, Silvia Tapia Coria, sought review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of her motions for remand and administrative closure. The Immigration Judge (IJ) had found Coria removable and denied cancellation of removal based on her conviction of a controlled substance offense. On appeal to the BIA, she requested remand based on her eligibility to become a derivative beneficiary of her husband’s pending U visa application, and also sought administrative closure of her proceedings.The court considered whether its jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial was limited by the “criminal alien bar” under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), as Coria was indisputably removable due to a covered criminal offense. She did not advance any constitutional claim or question of law that would have provided an exception to the criminal jurisdictional bar under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). The court held that its jurisdiction, under this circuit’s “on the merits” exception to the criminal jurisdictional bar, did not extend to this case.The court concluded that the “on the merits” exception was clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning and theory of Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683 (2020). Under Nasrallah, a “final order of removal” includes all IJ or BIA rulings that “merge into final orders of removal,” meaning all matters on which the validity of the final order is contingent, and judicial review does not extend to factual challenges to the final removal order. Thus, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review Coria’s challenge to the BIA’s factual finding regarding the speculative nature of her obtaining derivative U visa relief. View "CORIA V. GARLAND" on Justia Law

In this appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the appellant, Michael McLaughlin, challenged his state court convictions for attempted murder, battery, and burglary arising from a stabbing attack on multiple employees at a social services office in Nevada. He argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for not pursuing a defense of voluntary intoxication to negate specific intent, a required element for the charges.The district court denied McLaughlin's habeas corpus petition, but the Ninth Circuit initially vacated and remanded the decision. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court again denied relief, concluding that despite new evidence, the appellant's trial counsel had not provided ineffective assistance and that McLaughlin had not demonstrated prejudice.On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez, which clarified standards for considering new evidence in federal habeas proceedings, meant that the lower court was barred from considering any new evidence offered by McLaughlin. The Ninth Circuit found that McLaughlin's failure to present that evidence to the state courts "in compliance with state procedural rules" constituted a failure to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) as construed by Shinn. The court also noted that under Shinn, it made no difference that McLaughlin's first post-conviction counsel's negligence led to that failure.As McLaughlin conceded that he could not succeed on his ineffective assistance claim unless the new evidence was considered, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of McLaughlin's habeas petition. View "MCLAUGHLIN V. OLIVER" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of a pretrial release condition that temporarily barred two defendants from possessing firearms pending trial. The defendants, Jesus Perez-Garcia and John Thomas Fencl, were charged with various felony offenses. The district courts imposed a condition barring them from possessing firearms as part of their pretrial release, arguing that the restriction was necessary for public safety. The defendants appealed, arguing that this condition infringed on their Second Amendment rights.The Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding that the firearm condition was constitutional. The court reasoned that the Bail Reform Act of 1984's firearm condition on pretrial release is consistent with how courts have historically balanced the constitutional rights of pretrial detainees with public safety considerations. The court also pointed out that the nation has a long history of temporarily disarming criminal defendants facing serious charges and those deemed dangerous or unwilling to follow the law. Therefore, the court held that the temporary disarmament of the defendants was justified by this historical tradition. View "United States v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The case under review centers around certain Chapter 7 debtors and their creditor. The debtors filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief, but provided an incorrect mailing address for their creditor's attorney in their schedule of creditors. As a result, the creditor didn't file a claim in the bankruptcy case. The creditor later sought a determination that its default judgment in an unlawful detainer case wasn't discharged due to lack of notice of the bankruptcy.The bankruptcy court ruled in favor of the creditor, stating that no portion of the unlawful detainer judgment was dischargeable. This decision was affirmed by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. The debtors argued that all but a certain amount of the judgment, which they calculated to be what the creditor would have received had it filed a timely claim, was discharged. They also contended that the creditor seeking to recover the full amount would constitute a windfall.However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower courts' decisions. It concluded that a debtor’s failure to properly schedule a debt renders that debt nondischargeable in its entirety, rejecting the debtors' arguments. The court clarified that the issue of whether the debt could be enforced against the debtors is a matter of state law and interpretation of the prior state court judgment, and should be resolved by the state court. View "In re Licup v. Jefferson Avenue Temecula LLC" on Justia Law

In this case, a group of individual donors and two independent-expenditure organizations challenged certain campaign finance regulations enacted in Alaska after voters passed Ballot Measure 2, aimed at shedding light on "dark money" in the state's elections. The plaintiffs argued that these regulations violated their First Amendment rights. The two regulations at issue were: (1) a requirement for individual donors to report contributions exceeding an annual aggregate of $2,000 to an entity making expenditures for a candidate in prior or current election cycles, and (2) a requirement for political advertisements to disclose certain identifying information about donors in any communications intended to influence the election of a candidate.Applying exacting scrutiny, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that both regulations were substantially related and narrowly tailored to the government's interest in providing the electorate with accurate, real-time information. This interest was deemed sufficiently important in the campaign finance context. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' arguments that the reporting requirement was duplicative of existing criminal laws and overly burdensome. It also rejected their contention that the disclaimer requirement for political advertisements was unconstitutionally discriminatory against out-of-state speakers.The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying their motion for a preliminary injunction. Therefore, the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction was affirmed. The court, however, did not consider the remaining factors for a preliminary injunction as they were unnecessary for this holding. View "SMITH V. HELZER" on Justia Law