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

Defendant pleaded guilty to five counts of mail fraud and two counts of wire fraud. On appeal, defendant challenged his conviction, sentence, order of restitution, and imposition of a special condition. The court concluded that there was no breach of the plea agreement where the government's arguments at sentencing were directed to the specific objective identified in and permitted by the plea agreement; notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(h) was not required in this instance where the district court's outside the Guidelines sentence was the result of a variance, not a departure, where it relied on 8 U.S.C. 3553(a) factors; the district court did not err by failing to sua sponte determine the sufficiency and reliability of the statements proffered by the government in support of restitution for newly-discovered victims; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Special Condition No. 8, which required that defendant apply all monies received to his court-ordered financial obligations, to ensure that the victims received restitution should defendant receive any sort of unexpected financial gain. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Moschella" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of obstruction of justice for their involvement in leaking information regarding an FBI investigation to members of the Hells Angels gang and thus facilitating their criminal enterprise. On appeal, defendants claimed that they could not be convicted under the obstruction of justice statute, 18 U.S.C. 1512, because their alleged obstruction of an FBI investigation did not qualify as obstruction of an "official proceeding" under the statute. In light of the plain meaning of the term "proceeding," its use in the grammatical context of the "official proceeding" definition, and the broader statutory context, the court concluded that a criminal investigation was not an "official proceeding" under the obstruction of justice statute. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded so the district court could enter a judgment of acquittal on those charges. View "United States v. Ermoian" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, purchasers of condominiums in the Hard Rock Hotel San Diego, filed a putative class action suit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq., and California state law, against the Hotel's developer and others. At issue on appeal was whether plaintiffs have alleged the sale of a security based on their purchase of the condominiums. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that plaintiffs have not adequately alleged facts showing that they were offered the real-estate and rental-management contracts as a package. Plaintiffs did not allege facts showing that they were induced to buy the condominiums by the rental-management agreement. Accordingly, plaintiffs have not alleged the sale of a security and plaintiffs' claims were properly dismissed. View "Salameh v. Tarsadia Hotel" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a representative Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA), Cal. Lab. Code 2699, action against defendants alleging that they illegally deprived him and other nonexempt employees of meal periods, overtime and vacation wages, and accurate itemized wage statements. At issue on appeal was whether the penalties recoverable on behalf of all aggrieved employees could be considered in their totality to clear the federal diversity jurisdiction amount in controversy requirement under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). The court concluded that the recoveries at issue could not be aggregated to meet the amount in controversy requirement. To the extent plaintiff could assert anything but his individual interest, the court was unpersuaded that such a suit, the primary benefit of which would inure to the state, satisfied the requirements of federal diversity jurisdiction. The state, as the real party in interest, was not a "citizen" for diversity purposes. Accordingly, the federal courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this quintessential California dispute. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded, directing the district court to return the matter to state court for resolution. View " Urbino v. Orkin Services of California, Inc." on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, at issue was whether landowners could form the basis for membership in a particular social group for purposes of eligibility for asylum. The court granted petitioners', landowners, petition for review as to their asylum claim based on their membership in a particular social group; remanded for the BIA to reconsider its determinations that the particular social group offered by petitioners were not cognizable under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in light of en banc decision in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder; the BIA should address in the first instance whether the harm suffered by petitioners constituted persecution and whether that persecution was "on account of" a protected basis; and because the BIA denied petitioners' removal claims on the same basis as their asylum claims, the court reversed and remanded those determinations. Finally, the court granted Medina-Gonzalez's petition for review as to his Convention Against Torture claim, remanding for reconsideration of that claim in light of the court's recent decision in Tapia-Madrigal v. Holder. View "Cordoba v. Holder" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for possession with intent to distribute marijuana on March 24, 2010. On May 18, 2011, a superseding indictment issued adding a charge of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. Defendant was found guilty of the conspiracy charge and subsequently appealed, raising claims concerning the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161 et seq., and the use of a drug-detection dog. The court held that charges in a superseding indictment not required to be joined with the original charges come with a new seventy-day clock under the Act. In this instance, defendant's prosecution for the conspiracy charge complied with the Act because trial commenced within seventy days of the superseding indictment. The court concluded, however, that the government's failure to turn over a full complement of dog-history discovery was an error that was not harmless. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress and vacated defendant's conviction. View "United States v. Thomas" on Justia Law

This case concerned the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), a government program created to help distressed homeowners with delinquent mortgages. At issue was whether Wells Fargo was contractually required to offer plaintiffs a permanent mortgage modification after they complied with the requirements of a trial period plan (TPP). Following the Seventh Circuit, the court held that Wells Fargo was required to offer the modification. The district court should not have dismissed plaintiffs' complaints when the record showed that Wells Fargo had accepted and retained the payments demanded by the TPP, but neither offered a permanent modification, nor notified plaintiffs they were not entitled to one, as required by the terms of the TPP. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A." on Justia Law

This case involves a federal rent-subsidy program for Indian Tribes and Tribally Designated Housing Entities (TDHE) that lease housing to Indians. Fort Belknap, a TDHE, petitioned for review of HUD's decision to withhold overpayments from future program payments. The court held that 25 U.S.C. 4161(d) allows an appeal only when HUD takes action pursuant to section 4161(a). In this instance, because HUD has taken no action pursuant to section 4161(a), the court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. View "Fort Belknap v. Office of Pub. & Indian Hous." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after Robert St. Jovite committed suicide when he was an inmate in the California Prison System. The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs' claims that the warden and captain impermissibly convened a staff meeting that resulted in the absence of all floor officers from the building where a jury could conclude that the complete withdrawal of all supervision created an unconstitutional risk of harm to the mentally ill inmates in St. Jovite's building and that the warden and captain were responsible for, and deliberately indifferent, to this lack of supervision. The jury could also conclude that the lack of floor staff was an actual and proximate cause of St. Jovite's death. The court also held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs' claims based on the failure to administer CPR by defendants where there was a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to St. Jovite's potentially serious medical need. Accordingly, the court vacated summary judgment with respect to these claims. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Lemire v. Cal. Dep't of Corr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and her husband (collectively, "plaintiffs") filed suit claiming that the USCIS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., and the Due Process Clause, by denying the husband's I-130 petition without affording them the opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff's ex-husband regarding his statement that their marriage was entered into for the purpose of evading the immigration laws. The court concluded that the district court correctly held that there was no statutory right of cross-examination in I-130 visa adjudications. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on this claim. The court concluded, however, that plaintiffs' due process rights were violated where the immediate relative status for an alien spouse was a right to which citizen applicants were entitled and that protected interest was entitled to the protections of due process; plaintiffs' showed sufficient prejudice; and additional process was due in this case pursuant to Mathews v. Eldridge. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment as to the due process claim and remanded for further proceedings. View "Ching v. Mayorkas" on Justia Law