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

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision finding him ineligible for cancellation of removal for failure to demonstrate good moral character. Petitioner challenged the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. 1101(f)(7) on the ground that it violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Petitioner argued that section 1101(f)(7) presumed an individual to lack good moral character based solely on the length of time served in prison, rather than on the nature of the underlying criminal conduct. Given the wide variation in sentences imposed by different States for the same conduct, petitioner argued that section 1101(f)(7) allowed disparate treatment of similarly situated individuals. The court rejected petitioner's challenge, concluding that there were plausible reasons for Congress' action. Congress could rationally conclude that the expense and other difficulties of individual determinations justified the inherent imprecision of a prophylactic rule. The court also rejected petitioner's contention that section 1101(f)(7) violated equal protection principles because it relied on the period of incarceration generated by state sentencing regimes that were not uniform in operation. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Romero-Ochoa v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

These cases arose out of the energy crisis of 2000-2002. Plaintiffs, retail buyers of natural gas, alleged that defendants, natural gas traders, manipulated the price of natural gas by reporting false information to price indices published by trade publications and engaging in wash sales. The court held that the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. 717 et seq., did not preempt plaintiffs' state antitrust claims, and reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment to defendants. The 2003 enactment of FERC's Code of Conduct did not affect the court's conclusion that the NGA did not grant FERC jurisdiction over claims arising out of false price reporting and other anticompetitive behavior associated with nonjurisdictional sales. The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Heartland Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend to add a treble damages state law claim and therefore affirmed the district court's order denying that motion. The court reversed the district court's order dismissing the AEP Defendants from the Wisconsin Arandell case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Because the court agreed with the district court's conclusion that the plain text of Wisconsin Statutes 133.14 allowed recovery only by plaintiffs who were direct purchasers under the voided contract, the court affirmed the district court's order granting partial summary judgment to DETM. View "In re: Western States Antitrust Litig." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native of China, petitioned for review of the BIA's denial, on adverse credibility grounds, of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Petitioner claimed that he had been, and will be, persecuted because of his practice of Da Zang Gong, a teaching of Tibetan Buddhism. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the IJ's adverse credibility determination and that the inconsistencies noted by the BIA were such that the court was not compelled to accept petitioner's story. Petitioner's inconsistent statements, his failure to explain why he did not seek to enter the United States during his two-year stay in Mexico, and his voluntary return to China from Mexico, provided an adequate basis for the adverse credibility finding. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. View "Cui v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against defendants alleging that he was unlawfully arrested and searched in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff was arrested for trespass under California Penal Code 602.8 because he was standing by himself inside a playground that was surrounded by a fence that had "No Trespassing" signs posted at every entrance. The court rejected defendants' argument that the grounds for custodial arrest specified in California Penal Code 853.6(i) applied not only to misdemeanors but also to infractions. Consistent with precedent, the statute's plain language, the rule against superfluity, and other persuasive authority, the court held that California Penal Code 853.5 provided the exclusive grounds for custodial arrest of a person arrested for an infraction. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff's state law false arrest claim and remanded for further proceedings. If there are no further issues pertaining to liability on this claim, the district court should enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and proceed to a trial on damages. The court rejected plaintiff's remaining contentions. View "Edgerly v. City and County of San Francisco, et al" on Justia Law

In 2001, petitioner fell from a barge to a dry dock while working as a ship laborer. He then filed a workers' compensation claim under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. 901-950, for the injuries from his fall. In 2003, petitioner shot himself in the head, causing severe injuries. Petitioner also sought compensation for these injuries under the Act, alleging that his suicide attempt resulted from his 2001 fall and the litigation over that claim. The Benefits Review Board subsequently affirmed the ALJ's denial of benefits. The court held, however, that evidence that a claimant planned his suicide did not necessarily preclude compensation under the Act because the proper inquiry was whether the claimant's work-related injury caused him to attempt suicide. In this case, the ALJ erroneously applied the irresistible impulse test instead of the chain of causation test. Therefore, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the question was whether there was a direct and unbroken chain of causation between petitioner's work-related injury and his suicide attempt. View "Kealoha v. Office of Workers Comp. Programs" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, former employees of brokerage firms, filed four class actions challenging California's forced-patronage statute, section 450(a) of the California Labor Code. At issue was whether federal securities law preempted the enforcement of California's forced-patronage statute against brokerage houses that forbid their employees from opening outside trading accounts. The court affirmed the judgment and concluded that the district court correctly determined that the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78o(g), and related self-regulatory organizations (SROs) rules preempted plaintiffs' forced-patronage suits. View "McDaniel, et al v. Wells Fargo Investments, LLC, et al" on Justia Law

ANI, a risk retention group, filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Commissioner and the Division of Insurance under 42 U.S.C. 1983. ANI claimed that an order of the Commissioner violated the Liability Risk Retention Act (LRRA), 15 U.S.C. 3902(a)(1). The court held that the Commissioner's Order, which barred ANI from writing first dollar liability insurance policies in Nevada, was preempted by the LRRA. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's entry of declaratory and injunctive relief in favor of ANI. However, the LRRA did not confer a right to be free from state law that could be enforced under 42 U.S.C. 1983, making fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988 unavailable. Thus, the court vacated the fee award. Finally, the court remanded so that the district court could enter a new summary judgment order consistent with this opinion. View "Alliance of Nonprofits for Ins. v. Kipper, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his mandatory-minimum sentence, assigning error to the district court's rejection of his sentencing entrapment argument. Defendant argued a lack of predisposition to commit an offense involving the amount of cocaine charged, and was thus entrapped. Because the capability prong of the predisposition analysis was both less relevant and more easily manipulated in the context of a fictious stash house robbery, a defendant need only show a lack of intent or a lack of capability to establish sentencing entrapment. The court clarified that outrageousness was not itself an independent prong of sentencing entrapment. In this case, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that defendant failed to carry his burden and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Yuman-Hernandez" on Justia Law

Defendant, a prison inmate, filed suit challenging his validation as an "associate" of the Mexican Mafia, a recognized prison gang. The court held that defendant's void-for-vagueness challenge of Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, 3378(c)(4), an administrative regulation that guides officials in validating inmates as gang affiliates, failed because section 3378(c)(4) clearly indicated to defendant that his conduct could result in validation. Although the district court should have evaluated whether defendant was validated based on "some evidence," remand was not required to correct the error. The evidence in the record showed that prison officials relied on "some evidence" to validate defendant as an associate of the Mexican Mafia gang. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Castro v. Terhune, et al" on Justia Law

Firebaugh claimed that a lack of adequate drainage in part of the Central Valley Project (CVP) caused poor quality water flow into its service area. Firebaugh argued that Interior should be ordered to provide the necessary drainage or, alternatively, to pay money damages. The court held that Interior's broad discretion in matters of drainage precluded both claims. Firebaugh's proposals did not involve discrete actions that Interior was legally required to take; rather, they involved matters of discretion and, as such were beyond the scope of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(1). Providing irrigation water without concomitantly providing adequate drainage for it was a discretionary function and, therefore, not actionable under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2674. View "Firebaugh Canal Water District, et al v. United States, et al" on Justia Law