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

After defendant allegedly traveled to Mexico and engaged in illicit sexual conduct involving a minor, the government indicted defendant on one count of violating 18 U.S.C. 2423(c) and, because he was under a state-law duty to register as a sex offender, one count of violating section 2260A. The court held that the section 2260A count against defendant did not violate ex post facto principles. Even accepting defendant's argument that the state laws applied the registration requirement to him retroactively, the additional punishment under section 2260A was not for his earlier crimes. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of that count and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Hardeman" on Justia Law

Respondents appealed the district court's grant of habeas corpus to petitioner pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder with a deadly weapon and robbery with a deadly weapon. The district court granted habeas relief, concluding that the Kazalyn instruction for first degree murder given in petitioner's case violated her due process rights and that the improper instruction did not constitute harmless error. The court held that, in light of Nika v. State, petitioner's claim that the Kazalyn instruction violated her due process rights because it did not provide a distinct definition for deliberation failed. Byford v. State, which narrowed the scope of conduct that could qualify as first degree murder by expanding and separating definitions of premeditation, deliberation, and willfulness, should be applied to petitioner's conviction, which was not final at the time Byford was decided. The court held that the erroneous instructions constituted harmless error. The court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider petitioner's other claims in her petition which were not addressed by the district court. View "Babb v. Lozowsky, et al" on Justia Law

This case arose out of a dispute between the government and the county concerning the clean up of an abandoned landfill. The government entered into a consent decree with the county and the county then moved to modify the decree. The district court suspended the decree pending further findings and the government appealed. The county later moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the order was not appealable because it was nonfinal. Because the government failed to satisfy the Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc. factors, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction at this time and dismissed the appeal. View "United States v. El Dorado County, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Montblanc, and its President and CEO, Jan-Patrick Schmitz. The court concluded that Montblanc demonstrated that plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of store manager by offering her admissions that her disability prevented her from performing any work and plaintiff, in response, offered no submission establishing a triable issue of fact. Therefore, summary judgment on plaintiff's disability discrimination claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Cal. Gov't Code 12940(a), was proper. Because plaintiff pointed to no evidence that would raise a triable issue of whether Montblanc's true reason for terminating her employment was discriminatory, the court affirmed summary judgment on the retaliation claim under section 12940(h). Further, Schmitz's conduct during a store visit did not constitute harassment under section 12940(j). Finally, plaintiff's claim of intentional infliction of emotion distress failed where Schmitz's conduct could not be characterized as exceeding all bounds of that tolerated in a civilized community and plaintiff's alleged emotional distress was not "severe." Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of all of plaintiff's claims.View "Lawler v. Mountblanc North America, LLC, et al" on Justia Law

This case arose from a dispute over the character Superman that Jerome Siegel and Joseph Shuster jointly created and thereafter gave rights to DC Comic's predecessor. Defendants appealed the district court's denial of defendants' motion, pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code 425.16, to strike certain of DC Comics' state law claims. At issue was whether the court's decision in Batzel v. Smith remained good law after the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter. In Batzel, the court held that the collateral order doctrine permitted a party to take an interlocutory appeal of an order denying motions to strike pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. The court held that such motions remained among the class of orders for which an immediate appeal was available. Thus, the holding in Batzel remained good law and the order denying the motion to strike pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute remained immediately appealable pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. Therefore, the court had jurisdiction and decided the merits in a memorandum disposition filed concurrently. View "DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp., et al" on Justia Law

Defendant, a juvenile male, was charged with second-degree murder and using a firearm during a crime of violence. Defendant was seventeen years old at the time of the alleged offenses. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's order granting the government's motion to transfer juvenile proceedings for adult prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 5032. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by making findings regarding defendant's intellectual development and psychological maturity; the district court did not abuse its discretion by making a finding about the alleged discrepancy in individualized attention and counseling programs when comparing the adult and juvenile detention systems; and the district court's presumption of guilt for purposes of the transfer decision did not violate defendant's due process rights. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. JJ, Juvenile Male" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitioned for review of the BIA's holding that his conviction for simple kidnapping under California Penal Code (CPC) 207(a) was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), making him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. The court held that simple kidnapping under CPC 207(a) was not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude where simple kidnapping did not involve an intent to harm someone, the actual infliction of harm upon someone, or an action that affected a protected class of victim. The court granted the petition for review and remanded to allow the BIA to conduct a modified categorical analysis of petitioner's crime. View " Castrijon-Garcia v Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of knowingly possessing a biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate a sentence. The court addressed defendant's claims regarding a Brady violation, ineffective assistance of counsel, juror bias, and cumulative error, but found no reversible error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to vacate the sentence. View "United States v. Olsen" on Justia Law

Sideman, the legal representative for a taxpayer who was under criminal investigation by the IRS, appealed from the district court's order enforcing an IRS administrative summons to produce the taxpayer's documents. Sideman argued that producing the documents would be testimonial in violation of the taxpayer's Fifth Amendment rights. The district court's finding that the IRS could independently authenticate the tax records contained in the identified collection of boxes and folders currently held by Sideman was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court held that the district court did not err in applying the foregone conclusion exception when enforcing Sideman's compliance with the summons. View "United States v. Sideman & Bancroft, LLP" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of robbery/murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, defendant raised several claims regarding prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and improper admission of post-arrest statements. The court addressed each claim and held that the district court properly denied the petition. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Cunningham v. Wong" on Justia Law