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

The Federation filed a class action against United, alleging that the airline’s policy of using automatic kiosks inaccessible to blind travelers violates California’s antidiscrimination laws. The district court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the Federation’s claims were expressly preempted under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA), 49 U.S.C. 41713, and impliedly field preempted under the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 (ACAA), 49 U.S.C. 41705, and its implementing regulations, issued by the DOT. Under its interpretation of section 41713(b)(1) of the ADA, the court concluded that the Federation’s claims do not relate to a “service” provided by United. Moreover, the court's conclusion that United's kiosks fall outside the statutory definition of “services” is consistent with the ADA’s deregulatory purpose. Therefore, the Federation’s claims are not expressly preempted under the ADA. Absent any specific indication that Congress sought to preserve all state-law claims not expressly preempted under the ADA, the court adopted the Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co. approach and applied ordinary implied field preemption principles to the Federation’s claims. Applying the court's precedent concerning field preemption, the court concluded that the DOT ACAA regulations covering matters other than the use of airline ticketing kiosks are not pertinent to the court's field preemption inquiry; the new regulation is pervasive and intended to occupy the field of kiosk accessibility; and DOT acted within its delegated authority in promulgating the new regulation. Therefore, the Federation’s state-law claims are impliedly field preempted under the ACAA. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Nat'l Fed. of the Blind v. United States" on Justia Law

The United States filed suit against E. Wayne Hage, who is now deceased, and his son, Wayne N. Hage, alleging that they grazed cattle on federal lands without a permit or other authorization. The court concluded that defendants' unauthorized grazing of cattle on federal lands was unlawful, and their water rights have no effect on the analysis. Further, defendants' counterclaim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701(a)(2), is barred by the statute of limitations. The court reversed the judgment for defendants on their counterclaims and remanded with instructions that the district court enter judgment for the government; vacated the judgment with respect to the government’s trespass claims and remanded for reconsideration under the correct legal standard; and, on remand, the district court shall determine, among other things, whether the source of law - state law or federal law - has any effect on the calculation of damages. On remand, the court ordered the cased assigned to a different district judge. View "United States v. Estate of E. Wayne Hage" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions on twenty-four counts of wire fraud, seven counts of money laundering, and one count of investment-adviser fraud. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in barring defendant's expert witness from testifying and, even if the district court did not abuse its discretion, the error was harmless; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony regarding defendant's status as a fiduciary where nothing in the record indicates that testimony and argument regarding defendant's fiduciary status impermissibly infected his prosecution, and any concerns about the jurors’ equating violations of fiduciary duty with criminal liability were put to rest by the district court’s careful instructions on the elements of the offenses and the absence of reference to breach of fiduciary duty as a consideration in determining guilt; the district court did not violate defendant's Fifth Amendment rights when it declined to strike Count 33 from the indictment; and there is no cumulative error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Spangler" on Justia Law

After the parties reached a settlement in a securities class action, the district court approved the settlement and awarded attorneys' fees. Class counsel appealed, contending that the fee award was arbitrary. The court concluded that the district court's choice to apply the lodestar method, rather than the percentage-of-fund method, was well within the district court’s discretion. However, the court vacated and remanded for recalculation of the fee, concluding that the district court's near total failure to explain the basis of its award was an abuse of discretion. View "McGee v. China Electric Motor, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of armed carjacking, appealed the district court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court agreed with the district court that the petition is untimely and that petitioner is not entitled to equitable tolling because he did not act diligently in waiting fourteen months before inquiring into the status of his petition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the petition as time-barred. View "Fue v. Biter" on Justia Law

The FDA opened an investigation and sent warning letters to 1-800-GET-THIN and a few surgery centers in California, stating that the FDA believed 1-800-GET-THIN’s LapBand advertising violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq., by not providing relevant risk information regarding the LapBand procedure. The district court subsequently granted the government’s ex parte motion to compel production of attorney-client documents. The court agreed with the Sixth Circuit and concluded that, while in camera review is not necessary to establish a prima facie case that the client was engaged in or planning a criminal or fraudulent scheme when it sought the advice of counsel to further the scheme, a district court must examine the individual documents themselves to determine that the specific attorney-client communications for which production is sought are sufficiently related to and were made in furtherance of the intended, or present, continuing illegality. Accordingly, the court vacated the order compelling production of all subpoenaed documents so the district court may examine the documents in camera to determine which specific documents contain communications in furtherance of the crime fraud exception to the attorney client privilege. View "United States v. Omidi" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitioned for review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of his application for asylum and denial of his due process claim with regard to his removal proceedings before the IJ. The court clarified its holding in Abdisalan v. Holder and held that Pinto v. Holder remains the law of the Circuit. Pinto held that a BIA remand for further proceedings as to voluntary departure does not affect the finality of an otherwise-final order of removal. In this case, the court concluded that petitioner is subject to a final order of removal reviewable by this court because the BIA remanded his case to the IJ solely for proceedings related to voluntary departure. The court also concluded that, because petitioner’s asylum claim was not meaningfully exhausted before the BIA, this court lacks jurisdiction to review it. The court further concluded that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the manner in which the IJ conducted the removal proceedings violated his due process rights. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Rizo v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was awarded nominal damages on three of his four as-applied claims in a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit to invalidate aspects of Laguna Beach's ordinances prohibiting the use of sound-amplification devices on public sidewalks. Plaintiff then moved for attorneys' fees. The district court concluded that plaintiff was a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. 1983, but denied attorneys' fees pursuant to Farrar v. Hobby. Farrar held that a prevailing party who seeks a large compensatory award but receives only nominal damages may not be entitled to fees. The court affirmed the district court’s order denying fees under California law. However, under federal law, the court held that because plaintiff's lawsuit achieved its future-oriented goals and plaintiff never attempted to secure compensatory damages under section 1983, the Farrar exception does not apply. Consequently, the district court erred by not considering plaintiff's entitlement to fees under the standard framework. The court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Klein v. City of Laguna Beach" on Justia Law

The district court granted a motion for acquittal after the jury rendered a guilty verdict against defendant on two counts of sexual abuse of a severely disabled woman under 18 U.S.C. 2242(2)(B). The district court found insufficient evidence that the victim was “physically incapable” of resisting or declining to participate in the sexual assault by defendant. The court concluded that a defendant may be convicted under section 2242(2)(B) where the victim had some awareness of the situation and - while not completely physically helpless - was physically hampered due to sleep, intoxication, or drug use and thereby rendered physically incapable. The court held that - to the extent a defendant raises a factual dispute regarding consent as a defense under section 2242(2)(B) - the jury is the appropriate fact-finder to weigh the question when evaluating the victim’s physical incapacity to decline participation or communicate her unwillingness to engage in the alleged sexual abuse. The district court erred by taking the question out of the jury’s domain after it had rendered a guilty verdict against defendant. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "United States v. James" on Justia Law

A jury found that the City and the SMPD violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights when SMPD officers failed to disclose in seeking a warrant to search plaintiffs' home that Javier Bravo, Jr. was not living and had not been living in the home for some seven months prior to the shooting because he was incarcerated for unrelated charges. The court addressed an issue of first impression on appeal: whether in considering an award of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988, it is appropriate to take into consideration a plaintiff’s success in obtaining a settlement against another party arising out of the same facts. The court concluded that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, it was appropriate to take a settlement with the City of Santa Barbara into consideration. The court concluded that the district court's finding that plaintiffs achieved an excellent result is supported by the public benefit generated by the litigation as well as the $150,000 in damages plaintiffs obtained in the Santa Barbara settlement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's fee award. However, on the same theory, the court vacated the cost award against the Santa Maria defendants and remanded for the district court to take into account the costs recovered in the Santa Barbara settlement and offset those costs against the costs to be awarded against the Santa Maria defendants. View "Bravo v. City of Santa Maria" on Justia Law