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

Defendant appealed her convictions for money laundering, arguing that the prosecutor’s errors before the grand jury constitute structural error, requiring reversal. Defendant also argues that the government’s failure to disclose impeachment evidence about a hostile defense witness mandates a new trial. The court held that where the intentional misconduct by the prosecution goes to a witness’s credibility, it is not structural error. While the court shared concerns that its holding could encourage prosecutorial misconduct, United States v. Mechanik makes clear that something other than dismissal - such as a state bar inquiry or an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility - is the proper recourse under these facts. The court also concluded that the prosecution's actions at trial - asking the district court ex parte to decide in camera whether the witness's informant activity need be disclosed - were not improper. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Harmon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit in state court against Innoventions, alleging several causes of action, including four class claims. The gravamen of her complaint was that Innoventions had marketed a product called DiabeStevia with “grossly misleading and exaggerated claims” concerning its use and effectiveness. Innoventions removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4. The district court subsequently dismissed the case. The court held that the rule that a removed case in which the plaintiff lacks Article III standing must be remanded to state court under 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) applies as well to a case removed pursuant to CAFA as to any other type of removed case. The court rejected Innoventions' three arguments to the contrary. Finally, the court could not say with “absolute certainty” that remand would be futile. Therefore, the district court should have remanded this case to state court pursuant to section 1447(c). The court reversed and remanded. View "Polo v. Innoventions Int'l" on Justia Law

Plaintiff suit against Live Nation asserting claims for copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and removal of copyright management information (CMI) under 17 U.S.C. 1202. Live Nation stipulated in the district court that it infringed plaintiff's copyrights when it used his photos of Run-DMC without his authorization on t-shirts and a calendar. The district court granted summary judgment for Live Nation on plaintiff's claims. The court concluded that, drawing all inferences in plaintiff’s favor, the evidence in the record gave rise to a triable issue of fact as to Live Nation’s willfulness. Therefore, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment as to this issue. The court also reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim under section 1202(b) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 1202(b). In this case, the court concluded that the record creates a triable issue of fact as to whether Live Nation distributed plaintiff's photographs with the requisite knowledge. How Live Nation came to possess plaintiff's photographs - and thus whether it had knowledge that the CMI had been removed - is a fact “particularly within” Live Nation’s knowledge. It would be unfair to burden plaintiff at the summary judgment stage with proving that knowledge with greater specificity than he did. Finally, the court held that the provision, in Section 504(c)(1) of the Copyright Act, of separate statutory damage awards for the infringement of each work “for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally” applies only to parties who have been determined jointly and severally liable in the course of the liability determinations in the case for the infringements adjudicated in the action. Because plaintiff did not join any of his alleged downstream infringers as defendants in this case, the district court correctly held that he was limited to one award per work infringed by Live Nation. View "Friedman v. Live Nation Merchandise" on Justia Law

In these ten consolidated cases, appellants moved to dismiss their indictments for infractions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., or to enjoin their prosecutions on the grounds that the DOJ is prohibited from spending funds to prosecute them. At issue is whether criminal defendants may avoid prosecution for various federal marijuana offenses on the basis of a congressional appropriations rider that prohibits the DOJ from spending funds to prevent states’ implementation of their own medical marijuana laws. See the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, 542, 129 Stat. 2242, 2332-33. The court concluded that is has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1) to consider the interlocutory appeals from these direct denials of requests for injunctions. The court also concluded that appellants have standing to invoke separation-of-powers provisions of the Constitution to challenge their criminal prosecutions. The court concluded that section 542 prohibits the federal government only from preventing the implementation of those specific rules of state law that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. The DOJ does not prevent the implementation of rules authorizing conduct when it prosecutes individuals who engage in conduct unauthorized under state medical marijuana laws. Individuals who do not strictly comply with all state-law conditions regarding the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana have engaged in conduct that is unauthorized, and prosecuting such individuals does not violate section 542. Therefore, the court remanded to the district court for further consideration. View "United States v. McIntosh" on Justia Law

After defendant pled guilty to one count of illegal reentry after deportation, the district court applied a sixteen-level sentencing enhancement to defendant's base offense level because of his prior manslaughter conviction under Florida law. The court held that, in light of United States Supreme Court guidance, manslaughter, as defined by Florida Statute 782.07, does not constitute a crime of violence under USSG 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). Under Florida's jurisprudence, manslaughter, which does not require a mens rea of at least recklessness, punishes more than only generic contemporary manslaughter. Accordingly, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Mendoza-Padilla" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant argued that the district court improperly excluded 81 days that he maintains amounted to an “unreasonable” delay under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(1)(F), which governs the exclusion of transportation-related periods of delay. The court concluded that all of the days were properly excluded because defendant was incompetent to stand trial during the relevant period. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Romero" on Justia Law

In 2013, BLM adopted a new Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP) where the 26,098-acre North Algodones Dunes Wilderness tract would remain closed to off-road vehicles, as would 9,261 acres of milkvetch critical habitat. BLM additionally prepared an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzing the 2013 RAMP, and consulted with the Service pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. As a result, the Service issued a new Biological Opinion finding that the 2013 RAMP was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the milkvetch or desert tortoise. The Center brought challenges under the ESA; the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.; the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. 1701–1785; the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706 et seq. The district court granted summary judgment for BLM on all but one issue. The court concluded that the ESA does not require Biological Opinions to contain Incidental Take Statements for threatened plants. Therefore, the court need not consider separately the Services' interpretation of the statute. The court rejected the Center's remaining claims, concluding that the Center has failed to demonstrate that BLM’s emissions analysis was arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Center for Bio. Diversity v. BLM" on Justia Law

The NCUA filed suit under the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 77a et seq., against Wachovia and Nomura for making false and misleading statements in their offerings of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) purchased by Wescorp. The district court dismissed the claims, ruling that 12 U.S.C. 1787(b)(14) (the Extender Statute) did not supplant the statute of repose contained within 15 U.S.C. 77m, and therefore that the NCUA’s claims were time-barred. The court concluded that the district court erred in holding that the Extender Statute does not supplant the 1933 Act's statute of repose. The court held that the Extender Statute replaces all preexisting time limitations - whether styled as a statute of limitations or a statute of repose - in any action by the NCUA as conservator or liquidating agent. The court further held that the Extender Statute’s scope - “any action brought by the [NCUA]” - includes actions such as this one, in which the NCUA asserts statutory claims rather than common law tort or contract claims. Because the court concluded that NCUA claims were timely filed, the court vacated and remanded the district court's dismissal of the claims as time-barred. View "NCU Admin. Bd. v. Nomura Home Equity Loan" on Justia Law

The Party brought a facial First Amendment challenge to Hawaii’s open primary system, seeking to limit the participants in its primary elections to its formal members or to voters who are otherwise willing publicly to declare their support for the Party. The Party claims that Hawaii’s open primary system, which allows registered voters to participate in any party’s primary without formally joining or declaring support for that party, severely burdens the Party’s associational rights. Under Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent, the court concluded that the extent of the burden that a primary system imposes on associational rights is a factual question on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. In this case, the court concluded that the Party's preference for limiting primary participants to registered Party members, coupled with the fact that more people vote in Democratic primaries than are formally registered with the Party, is not sufficient to show that Hawaii’s open primary system severely burdens the Party’s associational rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Democratic Party of Hawaii v. Nago" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and his 120-month sentence. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court erred by denying his request for an evidentiary hearing on his motion to suppress, denying his Batson challenge without conducting an appropriate Batson analysis, and denying a minor-role reduction. The court also rejected defendant's contention that the government withheld evidence, resulting in prejudice both at trial and at sentencing. The court agreed with defendant, however, that the district court plainly erred by applying an obstruction of justice enhancement to his sentence without making the express findings required by United States v. Castro-Ponce. Finally, the court concluded that there is no basis to reverse on direct appeal where counsel opted to chose not to raise a valid objection regarding defendant’s contention that the government failed to disclose its suspicion that the defendant was a longtime pedestrian narcotics smuggler, resulting in prejudice at trial and at sentencing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Herrera-Rivera" on Justia Law