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

Plaintiffs, various film studios, alleged that the services offered and websites maintained by defendant and his company, isoHunt, induced third parties to download infringing copies of the studios' copyrighted works. This case concerned a peer-to-peer file sharing protocol known as BitTorrent. The court affirmed the district court's holding that plaintiffs had carried their burden of proving, on the basis of undisputed facts, defendant's liability for inducing others to infringe plaintiffs' copyrights. The court also affirmed summary judgment to plaintiffs on defendant's claims that he was entitled to the safe harbors provided by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 512(a), (c), and (d). The court concluded that portions of the permanent injunction were vague or unduly burdensome, and therefore, modified the injunction in part. View "Columbia Pictures Industries v. Fung" on Justia Law

The government sought to forfeit two bundles of currency in the amounts of $11,500 and $2,971. Only one contrary claim was filed regarding both sets of currency. The district court concluded that the claimant failed to comply with Supplemental Admiralty and Maritime Claims Rule G(5)(a)(iii), which required that a claim filed by a person asserting an interest as a bailee must identify the bailor. The court agreed with the district court that the requirement applied to the claimant, even though he initially asserted a different interest. The court concluded, however, that striking his claim based on that transgression was not mandatory but was instead subject to the sound exercise of discretion by the court. In this case, the dismissal of the claim to the $11,500 for that failure was an abuse of discretion, primarily because the omission did not prejudice the government or extend the forfeiture proceedings. The court further concluded that, even though the government had not given timely notice in regards to both sets of currency, the government was not required in these circumstances to return the property. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment in favor of the government regarding the portion of currency amounting to $2,971. The court vacated the judgment in favor of the government as to the $11,500 portion and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Guerrero, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought suit on behalf of a class of individuals from China who were seeking to acquire permanent resident status in the employment-based third preference category (EB-3). Plaintiffs alleged that during the 2008-2009 fiscal years, defendants did not allocate immigrant visas to eligible applicants in the correct order, thereby delaying their applications, and their eligibility for adjustment of status. The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint because there was no live case or controversy about the establishment of visa cut-off dates, and the allocation of visa numbers, in the 2008 and 2009 fiscal years. The district court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs' claims for prospective relief because they did not allege that defendants failed to take discrete actions they were legally required to take. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Li, et al. v. Kerry, et al." on Justia Law

FHFA, the regulator and conservator of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (the Enterprises), issued a "directive" preventing the Enterprises from buying mortgages on properties encumbered by liens made under so-called property-assessed clean energy (PACE) programs. Plaintiffs contended that FHFA was acting as a regulator, and not a conservator. As a regulator, plaintiffs contended that FHFA must issue a regulation to effectuate its order. The court concluded that FHFA's decision to cease purchasing mortgages on PACE-encumbered properties was a lawful exercise of its statutory authority as conservator of the Enterprises. Because the courts have no jurisdiction to review such actions, the court vacated the district court's order and dismissed the case. View "County of Sonoma, et al v. FHFA, et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Arizona capital prisoner convicted of murdering his ex-girlfriend, appealed from the denial of his first habeas petition and sought authorization to file a second or successive habeas petition. The court rejected defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims under Strickland v. Washington; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's requests for evidentiary hearings on his various ineffective assistance claims; the Arizona Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law when it denied petitioner's Eight Amendment claim regarding victim impact evidence; and because petitioner had not been able to demonstrate either due diligence or actual innocence as to his claims that where not presented in his first habeas petition, his application to file a second or successive application for a writ of habeas corpus was denied. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the petition and denied his application to file a second or successive habeas petition. View "Gulbrandson v. Ryan" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged the district court's denial of restitution and filed a petition for a writ of mandamus pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3771. The court held that the district court did not err in imposing a proximate cause requirement when applying 18 U.S.C. 2259(b)(3) and, in this respect, the petition was denied. The court's review of the record demonstrated that petitioners provided sufficient evidence to establish a causal connection between defendant's offense and petitioner's losses. Accordingly, the court granted the petition in part. View "Amy & Vicky v. USDC-SAC" on Justia Law

The underlying action was brought in California state court by plaintiff, who sued the Bank, a federally-insured, FDIC-supervised bank, for wrongful termination stemming from her complaints about the Bank's lending practices. At issue on appeal was the construction of 12 U.S.C. 1819(b)(2)(B), a statute that gave the FDIC the right to remove actions from state court to federal court. Here, in the underlying case in state court, the FDIC had neither been sued nor was it a party. The court concluded that Congress granted the FDIC far broader access to the federal courts than was available to ordinary litigants, but that access was not unlimited. Whether the FDIC's access should be broader was a question for Congress, not the court. As drafted, the statute did not authorize removal by the FDIC where it was not a party to the state court action and its role in the litigation was limited to a prospective, would-be intervenor. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order remanding the case to state court. View "Allen v. One United Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a subrogation suit against defendants for recovery of insurance payments to its insured, Taube-Koret, for environmental response costs Taube-Koret incurred in cleaning up pollutants released on its property. The court concluded that plaintiff had no standing to bring suit under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675, section 107(a) because it did not incur any "costs of response" related to the removal or remediation of a polluted site, and because the common law principle of subrogation did not apply to section 107(a); plaintiff could not bring a subrogation claim under section 112(c) because it did not allege that Taube-Koret was a "claimant"; and plaintiff's state law claims were time-barred. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's third amended complaint with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6). View "Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Systems/ Loral, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Petitioner, an Armenian native, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, injunctive and declaratory relief, and mandamus (District Court Petition) seeking to enjoin her imminent removal, reverse the USCIS's denial of her first adjustment-of-status application, and order USCIS to approve her then-pending second and third adjustment-of-status applications. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, and, in the alternative, sought to convert her appeal into a petition challenging the USCIS's denial of her adjustment-of-status applications pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(D). The court affirmed and declined to convert petitioner's appeal into a petition to the court. The court held that district courts had jurisdiction to hear cases challenging determinations made on nondiscretionary grounds respecting eligibility for the immigration benefits enumerated in section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), provided there were no pending removal proceedings in which an alien could apply for such benefits. The district court did not have jurisdiction over the petition because there had been no final agency action by USCIS on her pending adjustment-of-status applications at the time she filed her petition. However, because USCIS has since denied all of petitioner's applications, barring the discovery of new facts, the district court would now have jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 704, to hear petitioner's claim that her application was improperly denied. View "Mamigonian v. Biggs, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his jury conviction and sentence for assault resulting in serious bodily injury on an Indian reservation. The court concluded that the district court abused its discretion when it determined that the Certificate of Indian Blood was a self-authenticating document under Fed. R. Evid. 902(2). Because the error was not harmless, the court reversed the conviction and remanded for further proceedings. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion in limine, thus it did not deny defendant's right to present a defense. Finally, the district court's application of the sentencing enhancement for serious bodily injury was not clearly erroneous. View "United States v. Alvirez, Jr." on Justia Law