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

Plaintiff is a recognized figure in aviation history and defendants are retired commercial airline captains who became friends with plaintiff in the 1980s. Defendants sell aviation-related memorabilia, including items related to or signed by plaintiff. In 2008, plaintiff brought claims against defendants, including violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq., California's common law right to privacy, and California's statutory right to publicity, Cal. Civ. Code 3344. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's order granting summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiff contended that the district court should not have struck his declaration, which contained comprehensive details he did not remember at his deposition. He also contended that, under California's single-publication rule, defendants "republished" statements about him on their website - when they modified unrelated information on their website. The court rejected both arguments and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Yeager, et al v. Bowlin, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his jury conviction and sentence for three counts of wire fraud, two counts of possession of an unregistered firearm, and one count each of extortion, making a false statement, destruction of a letter box, and possession of a firearm not identified by a serial number. The court reversed the district court's decision to group Counts 1 through 7 together where the primary victim of the mailbox-related charges was distinct from the primary victim of the extortion and wire fraud charges. The court also concluded that three of five sentencing enhancements were imposed in error and remanded for recalculation of defendant's sentencing range. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

These two matters have been consolidated for a single opinion because they both arose out of the same labor dispute. HTH and the Union filed cross-petitions from the 2011 ruling of the NLRB that between August 2005 and May 2008, HTH committed unfair labor practices in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. HTH appealed from a preliminary injunction that required it to remedy certain actions taken in 2010. These actions were the subject of unfair labor practice charges currently pending before the NLRB. The court affirmed a preliminary injunction against HTH pending final NLRB disposition of the 2005-2008 unfair labor practice charges. The NLRB resolved those charges in its 2011 ruling, which HTH then sought to overturn. Notwithstanding the 2010 injunction, HTH repeated the very actions that had been enjoined that year, prompting another round of litigation before the NLRB. The district court granted a second preliminary injunction and HTH subsequently appealed that injunction. The court affirmed the injunction and granted the NLRB's application for enforcement of its 2011 ruling. View "Frankl v. HTH Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a securities fraud action individually and on behalf of all other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Rigel between certain dates, pursuant to sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a), and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff also brought claims on behalf of itself and persons who purchased Rigel stock traceable to the registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with Rigel's February 2008 stock offering. The court affirmed the district court's order granting defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint where plaintiff failed to meet the pleading requirements. View "Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT v. Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a citizen and native of India, challenged the IJ's finding that he knowingly filed a frivolous application. Petitioner admitted he filed a fabricated asylum application that was supported by fraudulent documents. At issue was whether the written advisals provided on the standard I-589 asylum application form constituted sufficient notice under 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(4)(A). Because the court concluded that the asylum application form petitioner signed provided sufficient notice under section 1158(d)(4)(A), the court denied the petition for review. View "Cheema v. Holder Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, nine homeless individuals living in the "Skid Row" district of Los Angeles, charged that the City violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by seizing and immediately destroying their unabandoned personal possessions, temporarily left on public sidewalks while plaintiffs attended to necessary tasks such as eating, showering, and using restrooms. Finding a strong likelihood of success on the merits, the district court enjoined the City from confiscating and summarily destroying unabandoned property in Skid Row. On appeal, the City argued that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in evaluating plaintiffs' claims. The court concluded that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments protected homeless persons from government seizure and summary destruction of their unabandoned, but momentarily unattended, personal property. Accordingly, the court denied the City's appeal. View "Lavan, et al. v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was removed from the Costa Mesa City Council meeting for an alleged violation of Costa Mesa Municipal Code 2-61, which made it a misdemeanor for members of the public who speak at City Council meetings to engage in "disorderly, insolent, or disruptive behavior." On appeal, plaintiff challenged, among other things, the district court's dismissal of his First Amendment facial challenge to the ordinance. Because section 2-61 failed to limit proscribed activity to only actual disturbances, the court reversed the district court's constitutionality ruling and found the statute facially invalid. However, the word "insolent" was easily removed from the ordinance without detriment to the purpose of section 2-61 and it need not be wholly invalidated since it was properly applied to plaintiff's disruptive behavior. The court affirmed the remainder of the district court's determinations. View "Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a Mexican citizen, petitioned for review of the BIA's decision that he was not eligible for waiver of inadmissibility because he was convicted of an aggravated felony. The court concluded that the crime of sexual battery under California law was categorically broader than the federal generic crime of "sexual abuse of a minor" because the California crime could be committed against a victim of any age, while the federal generic offense required proof that the victim was a minor. The court also concluded that none of the evidence the court was permitted to consider under the modified categorical approach established that petitioner's victim was a minor. Therefore, the court granted the petition and remanded the matter to the BIA. View "Sanchez-Avalos, et al. v. Holder" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, allegedly engaged in a romantic, but not sexual, relationship with a female prison guard. Plaintiff alleged that both during and after the relationship, the guard perpetrated sexual acts on him without his consent. He filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging constitutional violations of the First, Fourth, and Eighth Amendments. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment on his Eighth Amendment sexual harassment claim and failure to protect claim, and his First Amendment retaliation claim. The court held that plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim and reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on this claim. The court affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment on the remaining claims at issue. View "Wood v. Beauclair, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) provider, wished to provide wireless service in and around Pahrump, Nevada. Plaintiff sought digital interconnection with the facilities and equipment of defendant, the incumbent local exchange carrier (LEC) in the area. After the parties' efforts to negotiate an interconnection agreement failed, plaintiff brought suit alleging that defendant violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, by refusing to negotiate in good faith and by failing to provide digital interconnection with symmetrical pricing on an interim basis during negotiations, as required by the FCC regulations. The court held that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's good faith claim because it did not exhaust its administrative remedies under the court's prudential exhaustion requirement. The court also held that the interim arrangement and symmetrical pricing requirements applied only when the competing carrier did not have an existing interconnection arrangement with the incumbent LEC that provided for the transport and termination of telecommunications traffic. Because plaintiff had such an arrangement with defendant at all relevant times, defendant had no obligation to provide plaintiff an interim arrangement with symmetrical rates. The court remanded, however, to permit the district court to consider what, if any, relief was available to plaintiff under 47 C.F.R. 51.717. View "Autotel v. Nevada Bell Telephone Co." on Justia Law