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

Sean Runningeagle and his cousin Corey Tilden were convicted of murdering two victims. The state trial court imposed a sentence of death upon Runningeagle but not upon Tilden. Runningeagle's direct and collateral appeals were rejected by the state courts. Runningeagle subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus and request for an evidentiary hearing. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the state courts' denial of Runningeagle's claim that prosecutors withheld evidence obtained from a former cell-mate of Tilden's in violation of Brady v. Maryland was not an unreasonable application of or contrary to clearly established law; (2) the state Supreme Court's holding that counsel did not provide ineffective assistance was not an unreasonable application of the standard established in Strickland v. Washington; and (3) the state Supreme Court's determination that certain comments made by the prosecutor, while improper, did not amount to a due process violation was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. View "Runningeagle v. Schriro" on Justia Law

In 1993, James Alderson filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA) alleging Medicare fraud by Quorum Health Group, Inc., a hospital management company, and several related entities including the Hospital Corporation of America, Inc. (HCA). The United States intervened in 1998. The United States settled its FCA claims against HCA for $631 million in 2003. Alderson received sixteen percent of the settlement as his relator's share. Alderson and related taxpayers, Appellants, filed income tax returns for tax year 2003 reporting the relator's share as ordinary income. They later filed amended returns characterizing it as capital gain, seeking refunds of about $5 million. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) denied the refund claims. Appellants then filed suit in federal district court. The court granted summary judgment to the United States, holding that the relator's share was ordinary income. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Alderson's qui tam award under the FCA was ordinary income. View "Alderson v. United States" on Justia Law

Appellant, a former pilot for Vision Airlines, sued Vision on behalf of a Class of other pilots and flight crew employees to recover hazard pay, which Appellant and the Class alleged Vision had accepted on their behalf and never paid to them. After nearly two years of discovery disputes between Vision and the Class, the district court sanctioned Vision by striking its answer, entered default judgment against Vision, and held a jury trial to determine damages. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court rejected Vision's arguments that (1) the district court abused its discretion by striking Vision's answer, (2) the claims in the complaint were legally insufficient to support the default judgment, and (3) the district court abused its discretion by certifying the Class. The Court then reversed the order dismissing the Class's claim for punitive damages, holding that the district court erred in dismissing the Class's claim for punitive damages. View "Hester v. Vision Airlines, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, who suffered from limb girdle muscular dystrophy, sued Walt Disney World Company under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming that Disney denied her full and equal access to Disneyland by prohibiting her from using a Segway at Disneyland. Disney's policy was to allow wheelchairs and motorized scooters, but two-wheeled vehicles or devices were prohibited. The district court granted summary judgment for Disney, holding that Plaintiff was judicially estopped from claiming she couldn't use a motorized wheelchair, so there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether it was necessary for Plaintiff to use a Segway to visit Disneyland. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) Plaintiff was judicially estopped from claiming she couldn't use a motorized wheelchair or scooter; but (2) Disney must take reasonable steps to make Plaintiff's experience less onerous and more akin to that enjoyed by its able-bodied patrons under the ADA unless the device could not be operated in accordance with legitimate safety requirements. View "Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of his possession of marijuana. Defendant argued that an officer's two separate commands directing him to empty his pockets each constituted illegal searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant did not comply with the officer's first command, the command did not cause an intrusion upon Defendant's reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of his pockets, and thus, it was not a search; and (2) the officer's second command, with which Defendant complied was a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, but the search was not illegal because it was supported by probable cause and because exigent circumstances justified searching Defendant without a warrant. View "United States v. Pope" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were owners and operators of motels in Los Angeles. Plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) 41.49, which requires operators of hotels in the City to maintain certain guest registry information and to make that information available to police officers on request. Appellants contended that LAMC 41.49 was facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment because it authorized unreasonable invasions of their private business records without a warrant or pursuant to any recognized warrant exception. Following a bench trial on stipulated evidence, the district court held that the ordinance was reasonable and granted judgment in favor of the City, concluding that the hotel operators did not establish that they had a privacy interest in the guest registry information. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs' facial challenge to the ordinance failed. That the ordinance might operate unconstitutionally under some circumstances was not enough to render it invalid against a facial challenge. View "Patel v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether the renewal of forty-one water supply contracts by the United States Bureau of Reclamation violated section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and illegally threatened the existence of the delta smelt. The contracts at issue fell into two groups: (1) users who obtained water from the Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC contracts), and (2) parties who claimed to hold water rights senior to those held by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation with regard to a Central Valley Project and who previously entered into settlement contracts with the Bureau (settlement contractors). The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the DMC contracts and that Plaintiffs' claims against the settlement contractors failed because the contracts were not discretionary and were thus exempted from section 7(a)(2) compliance. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding that Plaintiffs lacked standing with regard to the contracts and that section 7(a)(2) of the ESA did not apply to the settlement contracts. View "Natural Res. Defense Council v. Salazar" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for attempted possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. The district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of the drugs that were discovered strapped to his legs when he exited a plane in the Seattle airport and also denied Defendant's motion challenging venue in the District of Alaska. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not clearly err in finding under the totality of the circumstances that Defendant voluntarily consented to the airport search that resulted in discovery of the methamphetamine; and (2) venue was proper in Alaska because possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine is a continuing offense, and Defendant took substantial steps in Alaska in pursuit of that offense. View "United States v. Pariseau" on Justia Law

Pentonville Developers, Ltd. and Marblearch Trading, Ltd., two Cyprus oil brokerage companies, sued the Republic of Iraq for unilaterally terminating two contracts for the purchase and sale of Iraqi oil. The district court concluded it had subject matter jurisdiction notwithstanding Iraq's assertion of sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act because the lawsuit fell within the "commercial exception" to that immunity. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that because the lawsuit was not based upon commercial activity by Iraq in the United States, nor upon an act in connection with such commercial activity having a direct effect in the United States, the district court erred in denying Iraq's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Terenkian v. Republic of Iraq " on Justia Law

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR) operated a customer rewards program, called Camel Cash, from 1991 to 1007. Customers could purchase Camel cigarettes, save Camel Cash certificates, enroll in the program, and ultimately redeem their certificates for merchandise featured in RJR catalogs. Plaintiffs alleged that, in reliance on RJR's actions, they purchased Camel cigarettes, enrolled in the program, and saved their certificates for future redemption. They alleged that in 2006 RJR abruptly ceased accepting certificates for redemption, making Plaintiffs' unredeemed certificates worthless. Plaintiffs brought this action for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and violation of two California consumer protection laws. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (1) affirmed dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims under the Unfair Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act; and (2) reversed the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims for promissory estoppel and breach of contract, holding that Plaintiffs adequately alleged these claims. View "Sateriale v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co." on Justia Law