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

Petitioner, convicted of voluntary manslaughter, challenged the denial of his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254 as second or successive. The court held that when a petitioner files a new petition while his first petition remains pending, courts have uniformly held that the new petition cannot be deemed second or successive under 28 U.S.C. 2244(b). Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. The court left it to the district court to decide on remand whether the claims alleged in the December 2011 petition reflect permissible amendments to the claims alleged in the June 2007 petition. Petitioner is entitled to litigate the set of claims alleged in the June 2007 petition, including permissible amendments to those claims,under the standard applicable to first petitions. View "Goodrum v. Busby" on Justia Law

Caltex filed suit for breach of contract and unfair competition against Lockheed, arguing that some contracts between Lockheed and the United States government require Lockheed to use certain materials that only Caltex is authorized to supply, and that Caltex is therefore the intended third-party beneficiary of those contracts. Caltex also claims that Lockheed’s failure to use such materials is an unfair or unlawful business practice under California law. The district court dismissed Caltex’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The court held that the uniquely federal interest in the liability of defense contractors to third parties is sufficiently dominant to demand a uniform, federal rule. Thus, whether Caltex may sue Lockheed based upon Lockheed’s contracts with the federal government is governed by federal common law. In this case, Caltex has not sufficiently alleged that it is an intended third-party beneficiary of the contracts between Lockheed and the federal government. Caltex's allegations do not expressly state, nor even suggest, that Lockheed or the federal government intended to grant Caltex enforceable rights under their contracts. They also do not suggest that either party had Caltex in mind when drafting their contracts. The court held that, under federal common law, an incidental third-party beneficiary of a contract, such as Caltex, has no enforceable rights under that contract. Finally, Caltex has failed to state a plausible unlawful or unfair competition claim. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Caltex Plastics v. Lockheed Martin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant Jim Little, the Executive Director of Employee Relations at the District, alleging sex discrimination for acts that had occurred in 2008. The district court dismissed the suit with prejudice based on lack of personal jurisdiction and untimeliness. Plaintiff later filed suit in 2013 against Little and the District, alleging sex discrimination claims, under state and federal law, stemming in part from her termination in 2010. The district court held that the earlier dismissal was res judicata and barred this action. The court held - consistent with the Restatement (Second) of Judgments and at least three sister circuits - that an earlier dismissal on alternative grounds, where one ground is a lack of jurisdiction, is not res judicata. Therefore, the court concluded that res judicata does not bar this action. The court reversed the dismissal in part. The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's federal claim because plaintiff's lawyer clearly and expressly abandoned the claim. The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's state-law claims to the extent that they rely solely on events that occurred more than three years before the filing of the complaint in this case. For purposes of the motion to dismiss, at least two claims are timely: (1) plaintiff's claim alleging discriminatory firing in 2010; and (2) a hostile work environment claim founded in part on actions occurring within the limitations period. The court remanded. View "Ruiz v. Snohomish County PUD" on Justia Law

Yashar signed an “I-864 Affidavit of Support,” in which he agreed to provide his wife Ayla with support. After the couple divorced, Ayla sought support pursuant to the affidavit. Yashar argued that the premarital agreement and divorce judgment terminated his obligations under the affidavit of support. The district court granted summary judgment to Yashar. The court held that, under federal law, neither a divorce judgment nor a premarital agreement may terminate an obligation of support. Therefore, the district court correctly determined that Yashar has a continuing obligation to support Ayla. The court held that when a sponsored immigrant separates from the sponsor’s household, the sponsor’s obligation under the affidavit of support is to provide the immigrant with whatever support is necessary to maintain him or her at an annual income of at least 125% of the poverty guidelines for a one-person household. If the sponsor agreed to support more than one immigrant, and those immigrants separate from the sponsor’s household and continue to live together, then the sponsor must provide them with whatever support is necessary to maintain them at an annual income of at least 125% of the poverty guidelines for a household of a size that includes all the sponsored immigrants. In this case, Yashar has a continuing obligation to provide Ayla with whatever support is necessary to maintain her at an income that is at least 125% of the poverty guidelines for a one-person household. For purposes of determining whether Yashar has fulfilled this obligation, the court must not consider the income of Ayla's son. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Erler v. Erler" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, debt collectors, alleging that they violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692i, when they sued her in the wrong judicial district to collect a debt that had been transferred to them. The district court concluded that the complaint was time-barred pursuant to the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations. The court concluded that, instead of applying Naas v. Stolman, the district court should have applied Mangum v. Action Collection Service, Inc., which is almost directly on point. The court held that the discovery rule applies equally regardless of the nature of the FDCPA violation alleged by a plaintiff. In this case, the court found that plaintiff's complaint was timely filed where she first learned of the collection action when she received service of process, and that she had no reason to suspect that she had been sued in Monterey County, a venue that is considerably distant from her residence in San Diego County. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Lyons v. Michael & Assocs." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit on his own behalf and also moved to represent 605 former and current sales associates as a class, alleging that Stoneledge requires sales associates to perform many tasks unrelated to sales. Plaintiff claimed that Stoneledge does not pay its sales associates for such work, beyond what they earn in commissions, and this policy violates California wage and hour laws. The district court granted class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The court concluded that the district court permissibly concluded that plaintiff had pleaded a common injury capable of class-wide resolution; where the need for individual damages calculations does not, alone, defeat class certification, the district court permissibly ruled that individual claims did not predominate in this case; and the district court did not violate the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. 2072(b), or abuse its discretion in certifying the class. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bermudez Vaquero v. Ashley Furniture" on Justia Law

After the district court denied Aldridge Currie's claims for habeas relief, it issued a certificate of appealability on his Batson v. Kentucky claim. The prosecutor in Currie's case, David Brown, has a history of unconstitutional race-based peremptory strikes. The court previously held that Brown violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause when he struck three African-American women from the jury of petitioner Aldridge Currie’s first trial. On retrial, the trial judge found that Brown had violated Batson again by striking three African-American prospective jurors. This case stems from Currie’s second retrial, in which Brown was the prosecutor again and where Brown removed one African American juror by using a peremptory strike. The court concluded that “race was a substantial motivating factor” for his strike of the juror at issue here based on Brown’s history of Batson violations and pretextual reasons in this case. The California Court of Appeal’s rejection of Currie’s Batson claim was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts, as it largely ignored the similar extent of drug use in the juror’s social circles and those of the empaneled jurors, and it uncritically accepted Brown’s other stated reasons. Therefore, the district court erred in rejecting Currie's habeas petition. The court reversed and remanded with instructions to issue a conditional writ of habeas corpus. View "Currie v. McDowell" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs and volunteers built the La Contessa, a replica of a 16th-century Spanish galleon, from a used school bus for use at the Burning Man Festival. Defendant intentionally burned the wooden structure of the La Contessa so that a scrap metal dealer could remove the underlying school bus from his property. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that defendant violated the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA), 17 U.S.C. 106(A), and committed common law conversion when he destroyed the La Contessa. The trial court granted summary judgment on their VARA claim and awarded attorneys' fees. The court held that an object constitutes a piece of “applied art”- as opposed to a “work of visual art”- where the object initially served a utilitarian function and the object continues to serve such a function after the artist made embellishments or alterations to it. Conversely, “applied art” would not include a piece of art whose function is purely aesthetic or a utilitarian object which is so transformed through the addition of artistic elements that its utilitarian functions cease. In this case, the court concluded that the La Contessa plainly was "applied art," and thus was not a work of visual art under the VARA and not eligible for its protection. Therefore, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to defendant on the VARA claim. The court also concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the testimony of two of plaintiffs' expert witnesses, nor did the trial court err in its jury instructions on abandoned property and abandonment. Furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to include jury instructions on lost profits and punitive damages resulting from the destruction of the La Contessa; in admitting evidence of drug paraphenalia surrounding the La Contessa as it sat on defendant’s property; and in denying plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on their conversion claim. Finally, the trial court did not err in awarding attorneys' fees. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Cheffins v. Stewart" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs challenged the BLM's decision to grant Tule a right-of-way on federal lands in southeast San Diego County. The BLM’s right-of-way grant permits Tule to construct and operate a wind energy project, which plaintiffs claim will harm birds in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. 703–12, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act), 16 U.S.C. 668–668d. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321–70h, in a number of respects in preparing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The court concluded that the district court properly determined that the EIS’s purpose-and need-statement was adequately broad, such that the agency’s decision was not foreordained; the BLM acted within its discretion in dismissing alternative proposals; the mitigation measures, including the 85-page Protection Plan, provide ample detail and adequate baseline data for the agency to evaluate the overall environmental impact of the Project; and the BLM's investigation took a hard look at the environmental impacts of the Project. The court held that plaintiffs’ argument that the Project will inevitably result in migratory-bird fatalities, even if true, is unavailing because the MBTA does not contemplate attenuated secondary liability on agencies like the BLM that act in a purely regulatory capacity, and whose regulatory acts do not directly or proximately cause the “take” of migratory birds, within the meaning of 16 U.S.C. 703(a). The court further held that the BLM’s regulatory role in this case is too far removed from the ultimate legal violation to be independently unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701-06. Finally, in regard to the Eagle Act, the court held that, in the narrow circumstances of this case, the BLM did not, by granting Tule the referenced right-of-way, take “agency actions . . . implemented by the agency itself” that would directly or proximately result in the incidental take of eagles by it or Tule. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for federal agencies and officials, as well as Tule. View "Protect Our Communities Found. v. Jewell" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the denial of his social security benefits. In a case of first impression, the court held that the law of the case doctrine and the rule of mandate apply to social security administrative remands from federal court in the same way they would apply to any other case. In this case, the court concluded that, given the new evidence - highly probative testimony about plaintiff's ability to perform his past work and a new finding supporting that testimony - the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to apply the law of the case doctrine. Given the expansive remand orders in this case, the ALJ did not violate the rule of mandate. The court also held that the ALJ properly categorized plaintiff’s past work and correctly found that he was still able to perform that work as it is generally performed in the national economy. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Stacy v. Colvin" on Justia Law