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

Petitioner seeks review of the NTSB's decision affirming the FAA's order revoking his aircraft registration certificate. After petitioner admitted to the FAA that he used his aircraft to transport marijuana, the FAA revoked his registration certificate because “the aircraft was used to carry out, or facilitate, an activity that is punishable” as a drug-related felony. 49 U.S.C. 44106(b)(1)(A). Separate, state court criminal proceedings against defendant were dismissed after the trial court suppressed the drug evidence found on his plane. The court concluded that, under the statute’s plain language, the proper inquiry is whether the “activity” is “punishable,” not whether the certificate holder is at risk of being punished. In this case, because the activity—transporting marijuana—was punishable as a felony, the court concluded that defendant's certificate was properly revoked even though he may no longer be subject to punishment under state law. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Connors v. NTSB" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, the court addressed an issue of first impression regarding the scope of appellate jurisdiction to review a district court’s remand order in a class action case founded on federal question jurisdiction. Although remand orders are not appealable as a matter of course, as part of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), Congress created an exception under 28 U.S.C. 1453(c)(1) that permits courts of appeals to accept appeals from remand orders in cases that are removed “under this section.” The court joined its sister circuits and concluded that this interlocutory review provision is limited to orders granting or denying remand of diversity class actions brought and removed under CAFA. The court dismissed the petition for permission to appeal, vacated the order granting fees, and remanded. View "Chan Healthcare Group v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are consumers who purchased Wesson-brand cooking oil products labeled “100% Natural.” On appeal, ConAgra seeks to reverse the district court's certification of the class, arguing that the district court failed to require plaintiffs to proffer a reliable way to identify members of the certified classes. The court concluded that it has never interpreted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to require such a showing, and the court joined the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits and declined to do so. The court explained that the language of Rule 23 neither provides nor implies that demonstrating an administratively feasible way to identify class members is a prerequisite to class certification, and the policy concerns that have motivated the Third Circuit to adopt a separately articulated requirement are already addressed by the Rule. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Briseno v. ConAgra Foods" on Justia Law

After Deanna Fogerty-Hardwick lost custody of her minor children, Preslie and Kendall, Preslie filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the County and employees of the SSA. Preslie alleges that the social worker employees acting under color of state law maliciously used perjured testimony and fabricated evidence to secure her removal from her mother, and that this abuse of state power violated her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights to her familial relationship with her mother. After the district court denied absolute and qualified immunity to the individual defendants, they appealed. The court affirmed the district court's denial of absolute immunity where Preslie’s complaint targets conduct well outside of the social workers’ legitimate role as quasi-prosecutorial advocates in presenting the case. The court concluded that Beltran v. Santa Clara County disposes of the issue. In Beltran, the court held that social workers are not entitled to absolute immunity from claims that they fabricated evidence during an investigation or made false statements in a dependency petition affidavit that they signed under penalty of perjury, because such actions are not similar to discretionary decisions about whether to prosecute. The court also concluded that defendants' use of perjured testimony and fabricated evidence in court in order to sever Preslie’s familial bond with her mother was unconstitutional. In this case, Preslie has produced more than sufficient admissible evidence to create a genuine dispute as to whether her removal from her mother’s custody violated her clearly established constitutional rights, and defendants’ case for qualified immunity from these charges is not supported by the law or the record. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Hardwick v. County of Orange" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenge the BLM's approval of the Mt. Hope Project, a proposed molybdenum mining operation near Eureka, Nevada. Plaintiffs argue that the BLM’s review of the Project under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., was inadequate and that the approval of the Project violated the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1732(b), and the laws governing lands withdrawn under the executive order known as Public Water Reserve No. 107 (PWR 107). The court agreed with plaintiffs' assertion that the BLM’s selection of baseline levels of certain air pollutants was unreasonable and that the BLM’s analysis of cumulative impacts was deficient. The court declined to address plaintiffs' PWR 107 claims because the BLM should be given an opportunity to fix the errors in its analysis of the Project under NEPA before challenges to the approval of the Project itself are entertained, and the proper analysis of the PWR 107 claim turns in large part on whether four springs in the area of the Project are “covered” by PWR 107, but the BLM’s position on that question is unclear. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded with instructions to vacate the record of decision and remand to the BLM. View "Great Basin Resource Watch v. BLM" on Justia Law

The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, pursuant to Article XVIII, section 5(c) of the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands Constitution, restricts voting in certain elections to individuals of "Northern Marianas descent" (NMDs). Plaintiff filed suit alleging that this restriction is race-based and violates the Fifteenth Amendment. The district court granted plaintiff declaratory and injunctive relief and required that non-NMDs be permitted to vote in the November 2014 special election. The court concluded that the voting restriction in Article XVIII, section 5(c) would divide the citizenry of the Commonwealth between NMDs and non-NMDs when voting on amendments to a property restriction that affects everyone. The court explained that the Fifteenth Amendment aims to prevent precisely this sort of division in voting. Because Article XVIII, section 5(c) relies on ancestral distinctions to limit voting in a territory-wide election in the Commonwealth, it violates the Fifteenth Amendment. The court rejected the remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment. View "Davis, Jr. v. Commonwealth Election Commission" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Archon, alleging breach of contract stemming from Archon's issuance of a Notice of Redemption to holders of outstanding shares of preferred stock. The court concluded that the district court properly held that it lacked federal question subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 because plaintiff did not assert a federal claim, and the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, 15 U.S.C. 77p(d)(1)(A), does not provide an independent basis for federal question jurisdiction over plaintiff's state-law claim. The court also concluded that it lacked diversity jurisdiction over the class action suit under section 1332(d)(2) because of the exception provided in section 1332(d)(9)(C). Finally, the court concluded that the district court properly held that it lacked diversity jurisdiction over plaintiff's individual claim under section 1332(a) and therefore could not exercise section 1367 supplemental jurisdiction over the class members’ claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint. View "Rainero v. Archon Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, an Indian citizen and a Sikh, sought relief from extradition pursuant to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Plaintiff argued that the United States would violate 22 C.F.R. 95.2(b) if it extradited plaintiff to India because he would “more likely than not” be tortured there, that diplomatic assurances would be insufficient to guarantee that he would not be tortured, and that he would be denied a fair trial in India. The Department and the Indian government exchanged a series of diplomatic notes and, in those notes (“the Understanding”), the Indian government stated that plaintiff would not be tortured. The Department then surrendered plaintiff to the Indian government where he was arrested and subjected to torture. Plaintiff filed suit arguing that the Indian government violated the Understanding when it subjected him to post-extradition torture. The district court dismissed the complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that the district court did not have jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim because the Indian Government did not waive their sovereign immunity through their diplomatic communications with the United States. The court explained that the Understanding is not an implicit waiver of sovereign immunity by the Indian government. Not only does the Understanding not match any of the three circumstances that ordinarily give rise to an implied waiver, but it also does not demonstrate that India intended the Understanding to be enforceable in United States courts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Barapind v. Government of the Republic of India" on Justia Law

Defendants Shields and Sims appeal their convictions for multiple counts stemming from the capitalization and operation of their real estate development business, which lost millions of investors’ dollars from 2007 to 2009. Defendants challenge their convictions based on several claimed trial errors, including admission of prejudicial evidence, failure to sever the joint trial, ineffective assistance of counsel, inadequate jury instructions, and denial of the right to be present at a critical stage. The court held that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that it must find a duty to disclose in order to convict defendants of wire fraud based on a material omission. However, there was no plain reversible error because the error was not clear and obvious, and is unlikely to affect the outcome of the proceedings. The court rejected defendants' remaining challenges in an unpublished memorandum disposition. View "United States v. Shields" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for multiple counts of conspiracy and armed bank robbery. He received a total sentence of 49.5 years. Defendant was a bank teller who robbed the banks where he worked and had inside information. The court affirmed the conviction and rejected defendant's claim that there was insufficient evidence to establish that each of the banks was FDIC insured and that the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of defendant's gun ownership. The court concluded that there was no Fourth Amendment violation where defendant voluntarily handed over the cell phone at issue, and the district court utilized Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(b) according to its terms by delaying a ruling on his motion for acquittal until after the close of his case. While the district court had the discretion to impose a lower sentence on the robbery and conspiracy counts, the court concluded that it was not required as a matter of law to reduce defendant's sentence to counter the effects of the mandatory minimums. Therefore, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was not substantively unreasonable. The court affirmed the judgment and conviction. View "United States v. Thomas, Jr." on Justia Law