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

Petitioner, an adopted son of a natural-born U.S. citizen father and naturalized U.S. citizen mother, petitioned for review of his citizenship claim. The IJ agreed with petitioner that he was not removable because he obtained automatic derivative citizenship from his parents upon his adoption. The BIA concluded, however, that petitioner has not met his burden to establish citizenship. The BIA vacated the IJ's termination order and remanded. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's citizenship claim where petitioner has not been ordered removed, and rejected petitioner's claim that the statutory provision for review of nationality claims under 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(5) creates an exception to the court's limitation to review of final orders. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. View "Viloria v. Lynch" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed statutory and constitutional challenges to government surveillance programs. The district court dismissed a Fourth Amendment claim regarding Internet surveillance, on the grounds that plaintiffs lacked standing and that their claim was barred by the state secrets privilege. The district court then certified the issue as final under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The government filed a motion to dismiss. The court concluded that the Rule 54(b) certification was not warranted and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the Fourth Amendment question is intertwined with several other issues that remain pending in district court and because this interlocutory appeal would only prolong final resolution of the case. View "Jewell v. NSA" on Justia Law

The district court held that temporary foreign workers in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and their employers are required to pay FICA taxes, which fund Social Security and Medicare. Concorde and more than 4,000 temporary, nonresident former employees of Concorde, appealed the district court's entry of judgment on the pleadings in favor of the United States. The court concluded that, because FICA is a law that imposes an excise tax to support the Social Security system, it applies to the CNMI as it applies to Guam; FICA applies to all workers and their employers in Guam, regardless of their citizenship; and FICA also applies to all workers and their employers in the CNMI, including appellants, regardless of their citizenship. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Fang Lin Ai v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged several FERC orders that were issued following the court's remand in Port of Seattle v. FERC. The key issue on appeal is the applicability of the Mobile-Sierra doctrine, which requires FERC to “presume that the rate set out in a freely negotiated wholesale-energy contract meets the ‘just and reasonable’ requirement” imposed by law. The court concluded that it has jurisdiction only as to the issue of whether FERC erred by invoking the Mobile-Sierra doctrine and that it lacks jurisdiction to review FERC’s evidentiary orders. The court held that FERC reasonably applied Mobile-Sierra to the class of contracts at issue and that FERC's interpretation is reasonable. In this case, FERC’s baseline assumption that the presumption applies to the contracts at issue is not unreasonable in light of Morgan Stanley Capital Grp., Inc. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1. Accordingly, the court denied the petition with respect to petitioners' claim that the Mobile-Sierra presumption cannot apply to the spot sales at issue and dismissed the evidentiary challenges for lack of jurisdiction. View "State of California v. FERC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, challenging the constitutionality of post-conviction DNA testing under California Penal Code 1405. The court rejected plaintiff's contention that the promise held out by section 1405 is illusory and the court was unpersuaded by the statistics plaintiff cited. The court concluded that tallying the available judicial decisions does not suggest that section 1405 in practice bars access to postconviction DNA testing. The court further concluded that the reasonable probability requirement does not violate due process where plaintiff failed to show that the requirement violates any recognized principle of fundamental fairness or goes beyond what the Supreme Court approved in District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial District v. Osborne. Moreover, the chain of custody requirement does not violate due process. The court finally concluded that the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine does not bar plaintiff's as-applied challenge because plaintiff seeks to invalidate the DNA testing statute on federal constitutional grounds. While review by someone other than the trial judge does not occur in every case, it is a categorical issue not limited to the particulars of plaintiff’s situation. The court went on to say that review of the section 1405 petition by a judge other than the trial judge does not violate due process. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Morrison v. Peterson" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, alleging that his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when a correctional counselor issued plaintiff an incident report charging him with “Possession of Anything Unauthorized.” A Disciplinary Hearing Officer found that plaintiff had committed “Conduct which Interferes with the Security or Orderly Running of the Institution.” The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment on plaintiff’s due process claim because, as its sister circuits have recognized, any procedural error was corrected through the administrative appeal process, and plaintiff ultimately did not lose any good time credits. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Frank v. Schultz" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank, alleging federal and state law claims arising out of the modification of the deed of trust for plaintiffs' home. At issue is the retroactivity of 15 U.S.C.1641(g), a 2009 amendment to the 1968 Truth in Lending Act (TILA). Section 1641(g) requires a creditor who obtains a mortgage loan by sale or transfer to notify the borrower of the transfer in writing. The court held that section 1641(g) does not apply retroactively because Congress did not express a clear intent to do so. The court noted that its holding is consistent with numerous district court decisions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Talaie v. Wells Fargo Bank" on Justia Law

After plaintiff's second application for disability benefits was denied by the ALJ, the government conceded that the ALJ made a legal error when it rejected the opinions of plaintiff's treating physician without giving sufficient reason. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's decision to exercise its discretion and remand to the ALJ for further proceedings. The court concluded that the district court did not err in remanding this case to the ALJ for further factual proceedings, rather than for payment of benefits. Further, in light of the inconsistencies, conflicts, and gaps in the record that require further administrative proceedings, the court did not proceed to the next question: whether the ALJ would be required to find plaintiff disabled if the physician's inconsistent reports were credited as true. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Dominguez v. Colvin" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a managerial employee, filed suit alleging that GlobalTranz and its executives fired her for engaging in protected activity. In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., the Supreme Court established a “fair notice” test for deciding whether an employee has “filed any complaint” under the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3). Plaintiff alleged that defendants retaliated against her for complaining about defendants' failure to comply with the FLSA. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants. The court held that a complaining employee’s position as a manager is an important part of the “context” that the fact-finder must consider. A reasonable employer would understand many actions taken by a non-managerial employee differently than it would understand the same actions taken by a manager. However, the court declined to formulate or adopt a special bright-line rule to apply when considering whether a manager has “filed any complaint” within the meaning of section 215(a)(3). In this case, applying Kasten’s “fair notice” rule, the court held that a jury reasonably could find that plaintiff filed such a complaint. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Rosenfield v. GlobalTranz Enters." on Justia Law

Uthe filed suit against defendants, alleging a conspiracy to unlawfully take over one of Uthe’s overseas subsidiaries. In its original federal court action, Uthe brought claims for, inter alia, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961–68, against both defendants and foreign defendants. A Singapore arbitration resulted in an award against the foreign defendants. Afterwards, Uthe reinstated the present action against defendants requesting relief under RICO's treble damages provision. The district court subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, holding that an award of additional damages under RICO would violate the "one satisfaction" rule. The court held, however, that Uthe is entitled to seek treble damages under RICO against defendants because the arbitral award did not constitute full satisfaction of Uthe's pre-existing RICO claim. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "UTHE Tech. Corp. v. Aetrium, Inc." on Justia Law