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

In a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, plaintiff Spencer Elden, who as a baby was photographed naked in a pool for the cover of Nirvana’s album Nevermind, sued Nirvana L.L.C., Universal Music Group, and others. Elden claimed that he was a victim of child pornography due to the photograph and sought personal injury damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018). The district court dismissed Elden's lawsuit, stating that it was barred by the ten-year statute of limitations, 18 U.S.C. § 2255(b)(1) (2018).However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and held that because each republication of child pornography may constitute a new personal injury, Elden’s complaint alleging republication of the album cover within the ten years preceding his action was not barred by the statute of limitations. The court drew a parallel between the personal injury caused by defamation and the injury caused by republication of child pornography, noting that victims of child pornography may suffer a new injury upon the republication of the pornographic material. The court remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings. View "ELDEN V. NIRVANA L.L.C." on Justia Law

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to comply with both the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in its decision to amend the registration of streptomycin for use on citrus crops. The case was brought by a group of environmental advocacy and public interest organizations against the EPA.The EPA had concluded that the registration of streptomycin for use on citrus would not cause "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment." However, the court disagreed, finding a lack of substantial evidence for some of the EPA’s conclusions. In particular, the court held that the EPA’s assessment of the risk to pollinators (bees) was incomplete or inadequately explained, and the agency failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the registration labels’ suggestion that streptomycin could be used to prevent citrus diseases.Furthermore, the court also found that the EPA failed to comply with the ESA. According to the ESA, the EPA should have determined whether the pesticide registration "may affect" any endangered species or critical habitat, which it failed to do.As a result, the court vacated the EPA’s amended registration of streptomycin for use on citrus crops and remanded the case back to the agency to address the errors in its FIFRA analysis and to conduct an ESA effects determination. View "MIGRANT CLINICIANS NETWORK V. USEPA" on Justia Law

In the Central District of California, defendant-appellant Christopher Esqueda was convicted for possession of a firearm as a felon, following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence collected during an undercover operation. Undercover agents, with Esqueda's consent, entered his motel room to conduct a controlled purchase of a firearm. The agents secretly recorded the encounter using audio-video equipment concealed on their persons. Esqueda argued that the secret recording of the encounter exceeded the scope of the "implied license" he granted when he consented to the officers' physical entry, hence infringing upon his Fourth Amendment rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that no Fourth Amendment search occurred. It relied on longstanding Supreme Court precedents asserting that an undercover officer who physically enters a premises with express consent and secretly records only what he can see and hear by virtue of his consented entry does not trespass, physically intrude, or otherwise engage in a search violative of the Fourth Amendment. The court noted that the Supreme Court's decisions in Florida v. Jardines and United States v. Jones, which outline a property-based, trespassory test for Fourth Amendment violations, do not disturb this principle. View "USA V. ESQUEDA" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a plaintiff named Robert A. Stanard, who was an inmate in the federal prison system, sued several prison officials, claiming they violated his Eighth Amendment rights by denying him treatment for Hepatitis C, and his Fifth Amendment rights by discriminating against him due to his pre-trial status. Stanard sought damages under Bivens, a precedent that allows individuals to sue federal officers for constitutional rights violations. The district court dismissed Stanard’s complaint, and he appealed.The Ninth Circuit partly affirmed and partly reversed the district court’s decision. First, the court reversed the dismissal of Stanard’s Eighth Amendment claim. The court found that his claim was not a new context for a Bivens action because it was similar to a previous case, Carlson v. Green, where the Supreme Court recognized a Bivens remedy for prison officials who were deliberately indifferent to an inmate's medical needs. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the prison officials in Stanard's case denied him care due to a Bureau of Prisons policy, while the officials in Carlson acted so inappropriately as to evidence intentional maltreatment causing death, holding that the difference in degree was not a meaningful difference that would create a new context.However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Stanard’s Fifth Amendment claim. The court found that this claim did present a new Bivens context because it involved disparate treatment of pre-sentencing and post-sentencing inmates, a situation not previously addressed in Bivens cases. Given that this was a new context, the court then determined that special factors counseled against extending a Bivens remedy. Specifically, the existence of alternative remedial structures, such as the Bureau of Prisons' administrative remedy process, indicated that Congress, rather than the courts, should decide whether to create a new damages remedy. View "STANARD V. DY" on Justia Law

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the defendant, William Klensch, appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of transportation of an illegal alien. Klensch argued that he was entitled to a minor-role reduction in his sentencing, contending that he had no knowledge of the full smuggling operation and was paid only a small sum for his part. The district court denied this reduction because Klensch was the one physically transporting the individuals. However, the appellate court ruled that the district court did not apply the correct legal standard in denying a minor-role reduction, as the court did not conduct a proper comparative analysis of Klensch’s conduct. The court noted that the district court's explanation did not indicate it considered the factors required for a minor-role reduction. As such, the appellate court vacated Klensch’s sentence and remanded for resentencing in regard to the minor-role reduction.Additionally, Klensch argued that the district court erred by imposing a dangerous-weapons enhancement because he did not possess the stun gun in his car in connection with his illegal smuggling activity. The appellate court rejected this argument, as Klensch acknowledged having the stun gun within his reach while transporting the two men. The court ruled that even if the district court applied an incorrect standard of proof by not requiring the Government to prove a nexus to the stun gun, this error was harmless. As such, the district court's imposition of the dangerous-weapons enhancement was affirmed. View "USA V. KLENSCH" on Justia Law

In this case, Randon L. Miller, the owner of Sushi Brokers, LLC, a sushi restaurant in Scottsdale, Arizona, was cited and arrested by Scottsdale Police Officer Christian Bailey for violating a COVID-19 emergency executive order prohibiting on-site dining issued by the Arizona Governor. The charges were later dismissed. Miller subsequently brought a lawsuit against Officer Bailey and the City of Scottsdale, alleging constitutional violations including retaliatory arrest in violation of the First Amendment, and false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Officer Bailey and the City of Scottsdale. The court held that Officer Bailey had probable cause to arrest Miller under Arizona Revised Statutes § 26-317 for violating the emergency order, given that officers had observed on-site dining at the restaurant and there were prior calls reporting violations. The court also rejected Miller’s argument that the warnings he received prior to the enactment of an executive order requiring notice and an opportunity to comply before any enforcement action did not qualify. The court found that Miller had sufficient notice and opportunity to comply given the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. View "MILLER V. CITY OF SCOTTSDALE" on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences of four defendants who were involved in the January 2016 occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon. The defendants were charged with various offenses including conspiracy to impede officers of the United States, possession of firearms in a federal facility, and depredation of government property. The court rejected the defendants' contentions that the district court erred in the jury selection process and that they were entitled to a jury trial for the misdemeanor offenses charged. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendants' misdemeanor and felony convictions. Furthermore, the court rejected the defendants' arguments that their Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was violated. The court remanded the case back to the district court to resolve certain issues related to the sealing and discovery of materials. The court's ruling is significant as it addressed the rights of the accused in the context of jury selection and the conduct of the trial. View "USA V. EHMER" on Justia Law

In this case, the plaintiff, Lorenzo Dominguez, who was a former employee of Better Mortgage Corporation, alleged that the company violated federal and state wage-and-hour laws, primarily by failing to pay overtime to him and other mortgage underwriters. Upon being sued, Better Mortgage attempted to reduce the size of the potential class and collective action by persuading employees to agree not to join any collective or class action and to settle their claims individually. The district court found that Better Mortgage's communications were misleading and coercive. As such, the court nullified the new employment agreements, release agreements, and ordered the company to communicate with current and former employees about wage-and-hour issues only in writing and with prior approval.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order imposing a communication restriction on Better Mortgage, considering the company's appeal timely due to a motion to reconsider the restriction, thus tolling the time to file the notice of appeal. The appellate court held that it had jurisdiction to review the communication restriction and found it both justified and tailored to the situation created by the employer’s misleading and coercive communications. However, the appellate court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the employer’s appeal from the district court’s order nullifying agreements between the employer and current and former employees. The appellate court found that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the nullification order because the issue was raised in an interlocutory appeal and did not fit any exception that would allow for review. View "DOMINGUEZ V. BETTER MORTGAGE CORPORATION" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Forest Service in a case brought by Earth Island Institute and the Center for Biological Diversity. The plaintiffs challenged the Forest Service's approval of the Three Creeks Project, which aimed to restore the Inyo National Forest to its pre-European settlement conditions by thinning excess trees, removing excess fire fuel, and using prescribed fire. The plaintiffs argued that the Forest Service failed to adequately consider alternatives to logging, failed to solicit public comments following its 2018 Environmental Assessment, and failed to supplement its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis following a 2020 bark-beetle outbreak. The court found that the plaintiff had not shown that the Service's approval of the Three Creeks Project was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful. The Service considered a reasonable range of alternatives, offered the public a reasonable opportunity to comment, and was not required to conduct further NEPA analysis following the bark-beetle outbreak. The court also held that the plaintiff had not properly raised its proposed alternatives during the comment period, and therefore it failed to exhaust its argument. Additionally, the court did not consider the plaintiff's claim regarding the Inyo Craters Project since it was not included in its amended complaint. View "EARTH ISLAND INSTITUTE V. USFS" on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's approval of a class action settlement between Tinder and Lisa Kim, a user of the dating app, ruling that Kim was not an adequate class representative. This class action lawsuit against Tinder was over its former age-based pricing model. Kim had agreed to arbitration, unlike over 7,000 potential members of the class, creating a fundamental conflict of interest that violated Rule 23(a)(4). The court found that Kim had a strong interest in settling her claim as she had no chance of going to trial, unlike the other members. The court also noted that Kim failed to vigorously litigate the case on behalf of the class, with her approach to opposing Tinder’s motion to compel arbitration not suggesting vigor. The court remanded the case for consideration of Kim's individual action against Tinder. View "KIM V. TINDER, INC." on Justia Law