9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Opinions Filed in April 2015

Nativity Scenes Comm. v. City of Santa Monica

A cause of action alleging First Amendment violations by a city is not created under the Establishment Clause or heckler veto doctrine when the city passes a content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation that is supported by secular rationales, and could not reasonably be construed as primarily seeking to communicate disapproval of a religion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

United States v. Gardenhire

It is a plain error if the court concludes an act to be reckless when no subjective evidence associated with the risk was presented.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

State of California v. FERC

Under § 205 of the Federal Power Act, in consideration of relief for transaction reporting violations, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must not structure the remand process to limit its review to proof of market concentration under its hub-and-spoke test, or exclude an enforceable transaction reporting requirement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Luna v. Kernan

A petitioner seeking equitable tolling for a one-year filing deadline must show (1) there were extreme circumstances which prevented the petitioner from filing on time, and (2) the petitioner was diligent in pursuing the petitioner’s rights.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Torralba-Mendia

It is considered plain error when a district court fails to provide jury instructions for how to evaluate testimony that is admitted as expert and lay witness testimony, unless it can be shown that the error was not prejudicial.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Allen v. The Boeing Co.

The term “event or occurrence” as used in the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(11)(B)(ii)(I), refers to a single event or occurrence that gives rise to the plaintiffs’ claims.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Paulsson v. Dorosz

Foreign laws cannot divest federal district courts of subject matter jurisdiction, unless a foreign law creates rights that can only be enforced by the foreign nation’s courts, then relief for violations of such rights cannot be sought in federal district courts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Arizona Libertarian Party v. Bennett

A statute that presents only a de minimis burden on a party’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights is subject to rational basis review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Pizzuto v. Ramirez

Motions fall within the permissible scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) if they claim that the federal habeas corpus court improperly held procedurally defaulted claims, and that the state’s attorney perpetrated fraud on the federal district court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Bonds

A single, non-responsive answer by a grand jury witness cannot support a conviction for obstruction of justice.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Prichard v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

A court reviews denials of insurance benefits de novo when the governing plan document does not contain discretion-granting terms.

Area(s) of Law:
  • ERISA

United States v. Alvarez-Ulloa

A court’s supplemental answer to a jury question is valid if it does not coerce the jury to make a certain determination.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Hornbuckle

Impermissible double counting during sentencing occurs when a court applies an enhancement for a necessary element of the underlying conviction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

United States v. Walls

A regulation that uses the phrase “affecting interstate commerce” indicates that Congress intended that regulation to extend to the outer limits of Congress’s commerce power.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

United States v. Mazzarella

A Fourth Amendment violation for lack of authority to search is likely if: (1) the government knew that it was conducting intrusive acts in violation of the Fourth Amendment, or acquiesced to such; or (2) if the third-party did not intend to further law enforcement efforts or the third-party’s own ends.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington

The “most-favored tribe clause” in the Tulalip Compact does not require the State of Washington to enact an amendment if the amendment does not reflect the same limitations of the terms that the State of Washington has agreed to with another tribe.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Indian Law

In re County of Orange

The Erie doctrine's federalism principle requires federal courts sitting in diversity to import, as the federal rule, state law governing jury trial waivers where state law is more protective of the right to a jury trial than federal law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Melendres v. Arpaio

An improperly joined non-jural entity may be dismissed and the proper entity added without harm to the underlying proceeding.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Gonzalez Becerra

The term “victim,” as shown in the United States Sentencing Guidelines § 2B1.1, is not just limited to fraud victims suffering from a pecuniary harm, but also includes those suffering from physical, financial, dignitary, and proprietary harms.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Astiana v. Hain Celestial Group

A state cause of action, based on federal cosmetic labeling laws, is not preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and therefore, the primary jurisdiction doctrine should be utilized.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

United States v. Aguilar

A court may deny a motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (60)(b)(1) when the Falk factors are met.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Sahagun-Gallegos

The application notes to United States Sentencing Guidelines § 3E1.1 retroactively apply to pending criminal cases.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

United States v. Urrutia-Contreras

At a revocation proceeding, a district court must provide the government an opportunity to offer a statement on their position pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.1.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Golden v. Cal. Emergency Physicians

When determining whether a settlement agreement is reviewable, traditional standards of ripeness apply. Additionally, covenants not to compete are not necessarily prohibited under section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Barboza v. Cal. Ass’n of Prof. Firefighters

Using the common law of trusts, parties do not need to use express language to create a trust between a trustee and a beneficiary.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

Chula Vista Citizens v. Norris

A requirement that the official proponent of an initiative be an elector does not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of speech of non-natural persons (i.e., corporations and associations); furthermore, a requirement that the name of the official proponent be published with a notice of intent and summary of the initiative withstands exacting scrutiny under the First Amendment because it bears a substantial relationship to electoral integrity, a sufficiently important governmental interest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

United States v. Simmons

The crime of escape does not inherently include a risk of physical injury to another and is not roughly similar to the offenses enumerating in the United States Sentencing Guidelines for the purpose of determining whether a defendant is a career offender for sentencing purposes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Tamman

The dual application of the Broker-Dealer enhancement and the Special Skill enhancement does not amount to double counting at sentencing when the enhancements reflect separate and distinct behavior of the principal defendant from the defendant-accessory.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

AmeriPride Serv. v. Texas Eastern Overseas

When determining the allocation of contribution costs in multi-party litigation, where some of the parties have settled, the district court has discretion in determining the most equitable approach, but the court must explain its methodology.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Eminence Investors v. BNYM

The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) securities exception under 28 U.S.C. § 1453(d)(3) applies where all of the claims in the class action relate to certain rights, duties, or obligations created by, or pursuant to a security.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

In re Tristar Esperanza Properties

Under 11 U.S.C. § 510(b), a claim for a monetary judgment against a debtor must be subordinated to senior claims if it is for damages arising from, or rescission of, the purchase or sale of a security of the debtor.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

United States v. Richter

As long as a defendant has an opportunity to present a closing argument, counsel’s conduct can act as an implicit waiver of that right.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Elmore v. Sinclair

Counsel’s strategic trial decisions must be objectively reasonable to defend against a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Jordan v. Nationstar Mortgage

A case becomes “removable” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1446 when the Class Action Fairness Act ground for removal is first disclosed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Reyes v. Dollar Tree Stores

Subject matter will exist when a state court's class certification creates a new occasion for removal and permits a second removal, which is timely if filed within thirty days of the class certification.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Back to Top