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

This case stemmed from a union dispute involving local union officials who diverted union resources in an attempt to establish a new competing union. At issue on appeal was whether section 501 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. 501, created a fiduciary duty to the union as an organization, not merely the union's rank-and-file members. The court held that it did. Because defendants were not entitled to an authorization defense, the record was sufficient to support the jury's finding that defendants violated their fiduciary duties to UHW under section 501. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding irrelevant evidence. The district court properly issued the permanent injunction. The court upheld that district court's interpretation of the verdict form and its denial of defendants' motion to alter or amend the judgment. There was no abuse of discretion in the district court's ruling on the challenge to the special verdict. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "SEIU, et al v. NUHW, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g). Because defendant was charged with a single, continuous act of possession over a ten-minute period, the court found no error in the district court's failure to give a specific unanimity instruction. The court concluded that the majority of the prosecutor's statements during closing argument were not improper, and that those that were improper did not result in substantial prejudice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction. View "United States v. Ruiz, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with fourteen counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343 stemming from his scheme to defraud his employer. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court erred in denying his motions for judgment of acquittal, a new trial, and for an arrest of judgment. The court rejected defendant's argument that routine transmissions occurring during the interbank collection process were not made for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud or in furtherance thereof; the district court erred in the jury instructions; there was insufficient evidence; and the wire fraud statute was unconstitutional. Accordingly, the court affirmed the conviction and sentence. View "United States v. Jinian" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitioned for review of a decision by the BIA ordering his removal from the United States because he violated the terms of his student visa. The court denied the petition, rejecting petitioner's contention that he was eligible for cancellation of removal because he could meet the required ten years of continuous presence in the United States. Petitioner claimed that he qualified for the special continuous presence exception available to honorably discharged aliens who have served in active duty status in the United States military, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(3), because he was out of the country completing military service in South Korea. View "Lim v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and others sought and received LASIK eye surgery with a Nidek EC-5000 Excimer Laser System ("Laser") to correct farsightedness. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, claimed that, had they known that the FDA had not approved the Laser for this use, they would not have consented to the surgeries. The court held that the complaint did not state a claim under the California Protection of Human Subjects in Medical Experimentation Act, Cal. Health & Saf. Code 24171 et seq., because the surgeries were not "medical experiments" subject to the protection of the Act. Plaintiff did not have standing to sue for injunctive relief under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code 1750 et seq., and his other substantive claim was preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq. Plaintiff's common-law fraud by omission claim was expressly preempted by the preemption provision in the Medical Device Amendments. Even if it were not, it was impliedly preempted because it amounted to an attempt to privately enforce the FDCA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. View "Perez, et al v. Nidek Co., Ltd., et al" on Justia Law

Luvdarts sued mobile wireless carriers, who own multimedia messaging networks (MMS networks), for copyright infringement. At issue was whether the carriers could be held liable for copyright infringement that allegedly occurred on their networks. Because Luvdarts failed to allege adequately that the carriers had the necessary right and ability to supervise the infringing conduct, the district court properly determined that they could not prevail on their claim of vicarious copyright infringement. Because Luvdarts failed to allege adequately that the carriers had the necessary specific knowledge of infringement, it could not prevail on its claim of contributory copyright infringement. Accordingly, Luvdarts failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted and the district court properly dismissed its complaint with prejudice. View "Luvdarts LLC, et al v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, et al" on Justia Law

Debtors filed a Chapter 13 petition and the Trustee objected to debtors proposed bankruptcy plan on the ground that it was not proposed in good faith because of the "miniscule" payments to unsecured claims while debtors were living in a $400,000 home, making payments on various luxury and unnecessary items, and failing to commit one hundred percent of their disposable income to the plan. The bankruptcy court overruled the objection and the bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) affirmed. The court concluded that Congress's adoption of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, 11 U.S.C. 1325(a), foreclosed a court's consideration of a debtor's Social Security income or a debtor's payments to secured creditors as part of the inquiry into good faith under section 1325(a). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the BAP. View "In re: David Welsh, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his habeas petition. The court held that petitioner's first two claims on appeal, that the Arizona courts applied an unconstitutional causal nexus test to mitigating evidence and the Arizona courts failed to consider mitigation evidence of his history of substance abuse, were without merit. The court held that petitioner's third claim, that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, was procedurally defaulted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Poyson v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought suit against the Chief of Police and the City under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging a First Amendment retaliation claim. Plaintiff, a police officer for the City, led a no-confidence vote of the police officers' union against the Chief. The Chief subsequently delayed signing an application for a certification that would have entitled plaintiff to a five percent salary increase. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, concluding that plaintiff failed to meet his burden under Garcetti v. Ceballos, to show that he undertook his act as a private citizen and not pursuant to his official duties. The court disagreed and held that plaintiff had established a prima facie case of First Amendment retaliation. Therefore, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Chief and remanded for further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City because plaintiff did not adduce sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment on his Monnell claim. View "Ellins v. City of Sierra Madre, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner sought review of the BIA's decision upholding the IJ's pretermission of her adjustment of status application. The BIA pretermitted petitioner's application on the ground that she did not satisfy the definition of "child" under 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(E) because she was not adopted before her 16th birthday. The court held that the BIA's blanket rule against recognizing state courts' nunc pro tunc adoption decrees constituted an impermissible construction of section 1101(b)(1)(E) under Chevron because it gave little or no weight to the federal policy of keeping families together, failed to afford deference to valid state court judgments in an area of the law that was primarily a matter of state concern, and addressed the possibility of immigration fraud through a sweeping, blanket rule rather than considering the validity of nunc pro tunc adoption decrees on a case-by-case basis. The court also held that the BIA's determination that petitioner engaged in marriage fraud violated her rights to due process of law. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review. View "Amponsah v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law