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

Defendants are alleged members or associates of a gang in Southern California called the Vineland Boys (VBS). Defendants were charged with crimes related to their membership or association with VBS. Manuel Yepiz, Jose Luis Mejia, Francisco Zambrano, Jesus Contreras, Mariano Meza, Sergio Mejia, Gilberto Carrasco, Rafael Yepiz, and Ernesto Mendez timely appealed their convictions and sentences. Defendants argue that the government violated Brady v. Maryland by failing to disclose the full extent of the benefits a cooperating witness received at trial. In light of the disputed facts surrounding defendants’ Brady claim, the court remanded to the district court so that it may engage in the necessary fact-finding to ascertain whether the witness received benefits that were undisclosed to defendants at the time of trial, and if so, whether Brady was violated as to each convicted count. The court also found that the district court abused its discretion when it arbitrarily and without explanation rejected Yepiz’s April 2006 letter seeking to replace his retained counsel with court-appointed counsel. Given the defects in the district court’s handling of Yepiz’s requests, the court vacated Yepiz's conviction and remanded for a new trial. The court addressed the remaining issues in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition. View "United States v. Yepiz" on Justia Law

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) pays Medicare Advantage organizations fixed monthly amounts for each enrollee. Medicare Advantage organizations have a financial incentive to exaggerate an enrollee’s health risks by reporting diagnosis codes unsupported by the enrollee’s medical records, and therefore, Medicare regulations require a Medicare Advantage organization to certify that the risk adjustment data is submits are accurate and truthful. Qui Tam Relator James Swoben filed a third amended complaint alleging that Medicare Advantage organizations performed biased retrospective medical record reviews, which rendered Defendants’ periodic certifications false, in violation of the False Claims Act. Defendants moved to dismiss Swoben’s claims. In response, Swoben sought to amend his complaint. The district court dismissed the third amended complaint with prejudice, concluding that Swoben failed to allege a claim with particularity as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). The court also denied leave to amend, citing both futility of amendment and undue delay. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment, holding that the dismissing Swoben’s third amended complaint without leave to amend based on futility of amendment and undue delay and that leave to amend was proper in this case. View "United States v. United Healthcare Insurance Co." on Justia Law

Plan beneficiaries (Plaintiffs) filed claims against their employer and its benefits plan administrator (collectively, Defendants) alleging breach of fiduciary duty in the selection and retention of certain mutual funds for a benefit plan governed by ERISA. The district court concluded that Plaintiffs' claims regarding the selection of mutual funds in 1999 were time-barred under the six-year limit of 29 U.S.C. 1113(1). The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals, holding that federal law imposes on fiduciaries an ongoing duty to monitor investments even absent a change in circumstances. On remand, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s decisions regarding funds added to the ERISA plan before 2001, holding (1) Plaintiffs did not forfeit the ongoing-duty-to-monitor argument either in the district court or on appeal; (2) only a “breach of violation” need occur within the six-year statutory period, and the initial investment need not be made within the statutory period; and (3) the duty of prudence required Defendants to reevaluate investments periodically and to take into account their power to obtain favorable investment products. Remanded. View "Tibble v. Edison International" on Justia Law

A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit amended an opinion filed November 9, 2015 and denied a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc in a case in which the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition filed by Defendant, a California state prisoner who challenged his conviction for first degree murder and sentence of death. In the amended opinion, the panel (1) rejected Defendant’s argument that the California Supreme Court unreasonably rejected his claim that he was denied due process when a prosecution investigator destroyed an audio tape found in a sealed envelope that explained defense strategy; (2) held that the California Supreme Court did not unreasonably reject Defendant’s arguments that his rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated by the trial court’s evidentiary rulings; (3) held that the California Supreme Court did not unreasonably reject Defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt phase or sentencing phase of trial; and (4) held that the California Supreme Court did not unreasonably reject Defendant’s claim that his right to an impartial jury was violated when the trial court failed to dismiss a certain juror. View "Zapien v. Martel" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a California law establishing a ten-day waiting period for all lawful purchases of guns. Specifically, Plaintiffs challenged the application of the full ten-day waiting period to those purchasers who have previously purchased a firearm or have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and who clear a background check in less than ten days. After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for Plaintiffs. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the State, holding that, applying intermediate scrutiny analysis, the law does not violate Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights because the ten-day wait is a reasonable precaution for the purchase of a second or third weapon, as well as for a first purchase. View "Silvester v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Yakama Nation, King Mountain Tobacco Company, and Delbert Wheeler brought suit for injunctive and declaratory relief seeking to bar federal agencies and officials from imposing the federal excise tax on tobacco products manufactured by King Mountain, a corporation organized, existing, and operating under the laws of the Yakama Nation. The district court granted the federal agencies’ motion to dismiss as to King Mountain and Wheeler. The court then entered summary judgment in favor of the federal agencies. The Yakama Nation appealed. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment, holding (1) Yakama Nation’s claims were barred by the Anti-Injunction Act; and (2) the Yakama Nation’s claims did not fall within the narrow exception to the Act set out in South Carolina v. Regan. Remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "Yakama Indian Nation v. Alcohol & Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to illegal reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1326. The district court applied a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement, concluding that Defendant’s prior conviction for attempted sexual abuse in the first degree in violation of Or. Rev. Stat. 163.427 constituted a “crime of violence” under the Sentencing Guidelines. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment of conviction and sentencing, holding that a conviction under any one of section 163.427(1)(a)’s three subdivisions necessarily entails a conviction of the elements of the generic federal definition of a “crime of violence.” View "United States v. Rocha-Alvarado" on Justia Law

The second appeal in this bankruptcy proceeding involved Augustine Bustos’s efforts to pursue an exception-to-discharge claim pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(c) against Steven Molasky, who filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy. Bustos moved to intervene in a section 523 adversary proceeding initiated by OneCap Funding Corporation, which represented Bustos’s interest under a loan-servicing agreement. The bankruptcy court allowed Bustos to intervene but prohibited him from filing his own complaint. OneCap was later dismissed from the proceeding for failure to prosecute. The bankruptcy court dismissed the adversary proceeding in its entirety, concluding that because Bustos failed to assert a timely separate objection to dischargeability, Bustos could not continue to prosecute the action. The Bankrtupcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed. The Fourth District reversed, holding that Bustos was entitled to continue prosecuting the section 523 claim originally filed by OneCap. View "Bustos v. Molasky" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with five counts of wire fraud stemming from his involvement in a broad scheme to defraud, spanning six years, several states, and numerous alleged victims. Each of the five counts pertains to a particular wire transfer in which a defrauded investor wired money to defendant; the five charged transactions involve a total of three investors; and all involve the scheme as perpetrated in Montana. The government intended to offer evidence of investor victims not specifically named in the indictment, additional uses of the wires and aspects of the scheme carried out in states other than Montana (“uncharged transactions”).The district court granted defendant's motion in limine to exclude the evidence in part. The government appealed and the district court stayed proceedings pending disposition of this interlocutory appeal. The court held that it has jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. 3731. The court also held that the evidence of uncharged transactions is not evidence of “other” crimes or acts under Rule 404(b), because it is evidence of part of the crime charged in the indictment – the overall scheme to defraud. The court explained that, even if the uncharged transactions at issue were not part of the crime charged, they would not be subject to exclusion under Rule 404(b) because they are “part of the same transaction” as the charged transactions. The inextricably intertwined doctrine, therefore, affords a second basis for concluding the evidence should not be treated as “other” crimes or “other” acts evidence under Rule 404(b). Accordingly, the court affirmed the order. View "United States v. Loftis" on Justia Law

Appellants appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees on Appellants' claims under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321. Appellants argue that Appellees' environment impact analysis for a new underground light rail line project in downtown Los Angeles was inadequate. As a preliminary matter, the court declined to take judicial notice of the three documents on Metro’s website. The court declined to consider Japanese Village’s argument that the mitigation monitoring and report plan (MMRP) was not properly attached to the Record of Decision (ROD). The court rejected Japanese Village's challenges to the adequacy of the mitigation plan included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) regarding construction-related noise and vibration; operational noise and vibration; subsidence; and parking. The court also rejected Bonaventure's claims that Appellees (1) failed to analyze Closed-Face TBM construction as a reasonable alternative tunneling method for the Lower Flower portion of the Project in the FEIS; (2) failed to adequately analyze certain impacts and impermissibly deferred certain mitigation analyses in the FEIS; and (3) failed to prepare a Supplemental EIS to analyze nighttime construction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Japanese Village, LLC v. FTA" on Justia Law