9th Circuit Court of Appeals

2022

September 38 summaries

Patsalis v. Shinn

If Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) applies, habeas relief cannot be granted unless the state court’s decision was (1) “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or (2) “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State Court proceeding.” Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289, 292 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Tingley v. Ferguson

“States may regulate professional conduct, even though that conduct incidentally involves speech.” National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361, 2372 (2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Aquilar v. Walgreen Co.

Pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, for a decision to fall within the narrow class of orders satisfying the doctrine three conditions must be met, (1) "conclusiveness," (2) "separateness," and (3) "effective unreviewability." Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 108 (2009).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Cody v. Kijakazi

“The appropriate remedy for an adjudication tainted with an appointments violation is a new hearing before a properly appointed official.” Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Hernandez Avilez v. Garland

Noncitizens subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c) are not statutorily eligible for release on bond during the judicial phase of the proceedings, except under the narrow circumstances defined by § 1226(c)(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Klamath Irrigation Dist. v. Shasta View Irrigation Dist.

A party is a “required party” if: “that [party] claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and . . . disposing of the action in [their] absence may . . . as a practical matter impair or impede [their] ability to protect the interest.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B)(i). To determine whether a suit should proceed among existing parties where a required party cannot be joined, courts consider: potential prejudice, possibility to reduce prejudice, adequacy of a judgment without the required party, and adequacy of a remedy with dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

MacIntyre v. Carroll College

“Retaliation against a person because that person has complained of sex discrimination is [a] form of intentional sex discrimination encompassed by Title IX’s private cause of action.” Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 544 U.S. 167, 173 (2005). “[A] plaintiff who lacks direct evidence of retaliation must first make out a prima facie case of retaliation…” Id. (citing Brown v. City of Tucson, 336 F.3d 1181, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)). “[T]o make out a prima facie case, a plaintiff need only make a minimal threshold showing of retaliation.” Id.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Metlakatla Indian Community v. Dunleavy

When evaluating off-reservation rights, the Court is required to infer rights that support a reservation’s purpose. See Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 576-77 (1908).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Indian Law

Metlakatla Indian Community v. Dunleavy

Statutes that touch upon federal Indian law “are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit.” Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. BNSF Ry. Co., 951 F.3d 1142, 1156 (9th Cir. 2020). Rights must be inferred that support a reservation’s purpose. Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 576–77 (1908).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Indian Law

Mark Bax v. Doctors Med. Ctr. Of Modesto

“Assessing whether an entity provided auxiliary aids where necessary to afford effective communications is a fact-intensive exercise. The tier of fact must weigh [several] factors, including the method of communication used by the individual; the nature, length, and complexity of the communication involved; and the context in which the communication is taking place. Updike v. Multnomah County, 870 F.3d 939, 958 (9th Cir. 2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

Nexus Pharms. v. Central Admixture Pharmacy Servs.

“Proceedings to enforce or restrain violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), including the compounding [pharmacy] statute, must be by and in the name of the United States, not a private party.” 21 U.S.C. § 337.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

U.S.A. v. Cynthia Montoya

Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(3)(B), if a defendant pleads guilty, the government “will recommend, or agree not to oppose, the defendant’s request, that a particular . . . sentencing range is appropriate, but the defendant has no right to withdraw the plea if the court does not follow the recommendation or request.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

United States v. Fowler

The inherent sovereignty of a tribe to prescribe and enforce laws necessarily includes the right to designate the individuals who will enforce its laws.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tribal Law

Hernandez v. Garland

Temporary protected status (TPS) does not constitute being “admitted in any status” under the cancellation statute of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a). Sanchez v. Mayorkas, 141 S. Ct. 1809 (2021).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Pinkert v. Schwab Charitable Fund

“An injury that has not yet materialized but will occur in the future can be a basis for Article III standing, but the injury must be ‘imminent,’ meaning that it must be ‘certainly impending.’” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

Singh V. Garland

Repeated acts of physical violence, accompanied with death threats, rise to the level of “serious harm” needed to show “past persecution” in petitions for asylum. See Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 634 (9th Cir. 2022).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Chen

District courts may consider non-retroactive changes in sentencing law, in combination with other factors particular to the individual defendant, when analyzing extraordinary and compelling reasons for purposes of § 3582(c)(1)(A).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

United States v. Reed

Harmless error review under Brecht shall be utilized when evaluating a habeas review of an instructional error where the jury is instructed on both a valid and invalid predicate offense and failed to specify which predicate forms the basis for a §924(c) conviction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Ochoa v. Public Consulting Group, Inc.

State action exists when the Plaintiff shows that her rights were deprived “by a rule of conduct imposed by the state or by a person for whom the State is responsible.” Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982).

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

Wright v. SEIU Local 503

In order to establish a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant “deprived [the plaintiff] of a right secured by the Constitution” and “acted under color of state law.” Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 1147 (9th Cir. 1989 (citation omitted).

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

Vo v. Choi

When declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for a state-law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4), a district court must: (1) sufficiently explain “why the circumstances of the case are exceptional” under § 1367(c)(4); and (2) show that “the balance of the Gibbs values provides compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction in such circumstances.” Arroyo v. Rosas, 19 F.4th 1202, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2021).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Spirit of Aloha Temple v. County of Maui

A law that “makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official—as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official—is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint.” Epona v. County of Ventura, 876 F.3d 1214, 1222 (9th Cir. 2017).

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

In Re Hawkeye Entertainment

“Under 11 U.S.C. § 365(b)(1), a debtor-in-possession may assume a lease only if it cures the default (or provides adequate assurances that it will), provides compensation for any actual pecuniary loss resulting from the default (or provides adequate assurances that it will) and provides adequate assurances of future performance under the lease.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper v. Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation

“An ESA § 9 claim cannot succeed unless the agency’s conduct is the proximate cause of the alleged take.” Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or., 515 U.S. 687, 696 n.9, 700 n.13 (1995).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

United States v. Rodriguez

When a defendant files a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, “a hearing is mandatory whenever the record does not affirmatively manifest the factual or legal invalidity of the petitioner’s claims.” Baumann v. United States, 692 F.2d 565, 571 (9th Cir. 1982).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

United States v. Wright

If property is no longer needed as evidence, the government must prove a “legitimate reason” to retain that property by: establishing that the property is contraband; establishing that the project is subject to forfeiture; or rebutting the presumption that the defendant is entitled to lawful possession of the property. United States v. Gladding, 775 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014); United States v. Van Cauwenberghe 827 F.2d 424, 433-34 (9th Cir. 1987).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Velasquez-Samayoa v. Merrick Garland

To prevail on a deferral of removal under the CAT, a plaintiff must “establish that it is more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (providing the standard for withholding of removal under the CAT); see id. §1208.17(a) (providing the standard for deferral of removal under the CAT). To qualify for CAT protection, an applicant must “show only a chance greater than fifty percent that he will be tortured if removed.” Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 770 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Hamoui v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 821, 827 (9th Cir. 2004)).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Jane Doe V. USDC-NVL

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3), parties can agree to an extension of the 72-hour deadline with approval from the court of appeals, so long as the extension does not involve a stay or continuance of the underlying district court proceedings for more than five days.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Kassas v. State Bar of Cal.

“[A]n individual debtor [is not discharged] from any debt—to the extent such debt is for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture . . . and is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss.” 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(7).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Lara-Garcia v. Garland

A dismissed conviction under the Federal First Offense Act (FFOA), or a similar conviction for simple possession of drugs, later expunged under a state’s rehabilitative statute, was not a “conviction” for purposes of immigration law. Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728, 749 (9th Cir. 2000).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

The Geo Group v. Newsom

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Supremacy Clause “as prohibiting States from interfering with or controlling the operations of the Federal Government.” Washington, 142 S. Ct. at 1984.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

De La Rosa-Rodriguez v. Garland

The Limited Review Provision provides that: Nothing in subparagraph (B) or (C), which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

In Re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation

In determining if a settlement in a class action is fair and reasonable, the district court “must apply an even higher level of scrutiny” that considers if there are “any subtle signs that class counsel have allowed pursuit of their own self-interest to infect the negotiations.” Roes v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 944 F.3d 1035, 1046 (9th Cir. 2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Johnson v. City of Grants Pass

“The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter.” Martin v. City of Boise, 902 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Save the Bull Trout v. Williams

Claim preclusion applies where “the earlier suit (1) involved the same ‘claim’ or cause of action as the later suit, (2) reached a final judgment on the merits, and (3) involved identical parties or privies.” Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Wildlife Law

Gable v. Williams

"Actual innocence," as a procedural default excuse does not require “affirmatively prov[ing] . . . [the defendant] is probably innocent,” as in a solo claim of “actual innocence.” See Jones v. Taylor, 763 F.3d at 1246–47 (internal citation omitted)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Guzman v. Polaris Industries

Under Somner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834, 837 (9th Cir. 2020), a plaintiff may only seek an equitable remedy under the UCL and CLRA if they lack an adequate legal remedy.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.

[The court which issued the prior judgment has] a strong presumption against enjoining a state court proceeding, as determining the preclusive effect of a prior judgment “is usually the bailiwick of the second court.” Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299, 307 (2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

October 34 summaries

U.S. v. Rosenow

The Fourth Amendment encompasses a private party’s search if the private party is acting “as an agent of the Government or with the participation of knowledge of any governmental official.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Chennette v. Porch.com, Inc.

Plaintiff's standing under TCPA 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), stating that businesses cannot use telephone solicitations if “[a] residential telephone subscriber [] has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry,” was permitted based on statutory presumption favoring protection.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

USSEC v. Murphy

"When someone places another’s capital at risk by trading securities as his or her agent, he or she is trading securities “for the account of others,” and is a “broker” subject to § 15(a)’s registration requirements. 15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(4)(A)."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Muñoz v. U.S. Dep't of State

In the case of a visa denial, if the government fails to provide "a facially legitimate and bona fide reason for denying the visa” Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 770 (1972). Or, if despite a "bona fide reason" the petitioner makes an "affirmative showing" of bad faith, judicial review is permitted. Kerry v. Din, 576 U.S. 86, 105 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Ochoa v. Davis

(1) A juror in a capital case is properly excluded for cause where the juror’s views on capital punishment would “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424 (1985) (cleaned up). (2) Ineffective assistance of counsel claims require that “counsel’s performance was deficient,” and that the “deficient performance prejudiced [defendant’s] defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). In the penalty phase of a capital case, a defendant must show “a reasonable probability that at least one juror” would have voted for a life sentence. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510, 537 (2003). (3) Intellectual disability is defined according to 3 factors: “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning”; “deficits in adaptive functioning”; and “onset of these deficits during the developmental period.” Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701, 710 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Save Our Skies LA v. FAA

Agencies must prepare an environmental impact statement for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). However, the FAA has a “categorical exclusion” for editorial changes which have no effect on the flight path of an airplane, bypassing the typical NEPA impact statement requirement. FAA Order 1050.1F 5-6.5.k; see 40 C.F.R. § 1507.3(e)(2)(ii).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Mobilize the Message, LLC. v. Bonta

“[T]he First Amendment does not prevent restrictions directed at commerce or conduct from imposing incidental burdens on speech.” Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

United States v. Saelee

To establish that evidence originally acquired unlawfully has been independently attained, the State must show that, “no information gained from the Fourth Amendment violations “affected either [1] the law enforcement officers’ decision to seek a warrant or [2] the magistrate’s decision to grant it.” Murray, 487 U.S. at 539–40.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Eaton v. Blewett

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners must exhaust “such administrative remedies as are available” before bringing a claim to federal court. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). However, if a claim is not barred if a remedy is effectively unavailable. McBride v. Lopez, 807 F.3d 982, 986 (9th Cir. 2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Mendoza v. Strickler

The State is “free to choose” a variety of measures less intrusive than incarceration, and does not have to accept a defendant escaping punishment for lack of ability to pay a fine. See Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 244–45 (1970); Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 672 (1983).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

U.S. v. Holguin

It is within the court's "broad latitude" to deny a Daubert hearing. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 142 (1999).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

350 Montana v. Haaland

The arbitrary and capricious standard under the APA requires the court 'to determine whether the agency has taken a 'hard look' at the consequences of its actions, 'based [its decision] on a consideration of the relevant factors,' and provided a 'convincing statement of reasons to explain why a project's impacts are insignificant.' Barnes v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 655 F.3d 1124, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Hoyos v. Davis

To establish a prima facie case at Step One of a Batson analysis, Defendant bares the burden to show: (1) they are a member of a cognizable group; (2) the prosecutor removed members of that group; and (3) the totality of the circumstances gives rise to an inference that the prosecutor excluded jurors based on race. United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez, 422 F.3d 897, 904 (9th Cir. 2005).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Bax v. Doctors Med. Ctr. of Modesto Inc.

To avoid discriminating against persons with disabilities, covered entities must ensure meaningful access to their services. The touchstone of the accessibility analysis is whether the entity provided auxiliary aids sufficient to ensure “effective communication” with deaf patients.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

Michaels v. Davis

(1) If a suspect “indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent,” officers must cease the interrogation. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 473-74 (1966). The Miranda rights invocation must be “unambiguous.” Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459 (1994). (2) Ineffective assistance of counsel claims require that “counsel’s performance was deficient,” and that the “deficient performance prejudiced [defendant’s] defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). (3) The dispositive question when defendants complain of conflicts with their attorneys that are conflicts of their own making is whether counsel provided adequate counsel according to standards established in Strickland. See Plumlee v. Masto, 512 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). (4) To be competent to stand trial, a defendant must have “sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding . . . [and] a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 354 (1996) (alterations in original).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Peck v. Montoya

“In evaluating a Fourth Amendment claim of excessive force, we ask whether the officers’ actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them.” Rice v. Morehouse, 989 F.3d 1112.

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

Riley v. Volkswagen Group of America

Under BMW v. Gore, three guidelines establish “whether punitive damage awards comply with due process: (1) the reprehensibility of defendant’s conduct; (2) the disparity between . . . harm suffered . . . [and] punitive damages; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages and . . . civil penalties . . . in comparable cases.” BMW v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 575 (1996).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Dong v. Garland

A credibility determination for an asylum application may be based on the “the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness.” See 8 U.S.C. §1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Killgore v. Specpro Pro. Servs.

An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation. California Whistleblower Protection Act, section 1102.5(c).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Wakefield v. ViSalus

In determining whether a Plaintiff has established a concrete injury in fact in order to have standing to sue under Article III, “an intangible injury is sufficiently concrete when Congress created a statutory cause of action for the injury.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez 141 S. Ct. at 2204–07.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

Lopez v. Garland

The Convention Against Torture prohibits the U.S. from returning anyone to a country where it is more than likely they would be tortured.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Newman

Under Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 US. 663 (1981), journalists are not immune from generally applicable laws when engaging in newsgathering. Furthering a RICO scheme is not a sufficient independent criminal or tortious purpose to support violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, where the purpose of the RICO scheme and the wiretapping are the same.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Cadena v. Customer Connexx, LLC

In determining if an activity performed outside of regular working hours is compensable, the court must consider, “if those activities are an integral and indispensable part of the principal activity for which covered workmen are employed.” Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247, 256 (1956).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

Jane Does v. Reddit

“To hold a defendant criminally liable as a beneficiary of sex trafficking, the defendant must have actually engaged in some aspect of the sex trafficking.” United States v. Afyare, 632 F. App’x 272, 286 (6th Cir. 2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Mendoza-Linares v. Garland

The “Transit Bar,” which provided that, subject to certain enumerated exceptions, an alien who arrived in the U.S. across the southern border “after transiting through at least one country outside the alien’s country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence en route to the United States” was categorically ineligible for asylum. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c)(4) (2020)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Shayler v. 1310 PCH

“In ADA cases, a prevailing plaintiff may recover a reasonable attorney’s fee. 42 U.S.C. § 12205. A reasonable attorney’s fee... can be adjusted upward or downward based on other factors. Machowski v. 333 N. Placentia Prop., LLC, 38 F.4th 837, 840-41 (9th Cir. 2022).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

United States v. Kabir

USSG § 3B1.1(c) provides that a defendant’s offense level will be adjusted two levels upward if he “was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor” in a non-extensive criminal activity involving fewer than five participants. “Plain error is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d 546, 551 (9th Cir. 2008).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Jane Doe v. USDC-NVL

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(3), when a defendant agrees to pay restitution as part of a plea agreement the district court has statutory authority to award restitution. United States v. McAninch, 994 F.2d 1380, 1384 n.4 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Soderling, 970 F.2d 529, 534 n.9 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Verdun, et. al. v. City of San Diego

The administrative search exception may be reasonable where the primary purpose of a search is distinguishable from the general interest of crime control.

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

Bliss Sequoia Ins. & Risk Advisors, Inc. v. Allied Prop & Casualty Ins. Co.

A broad interpretation of “because of” is not a reasonable one, and "a but-for cause is not always (in fact not often) a cause relevant to legal liability.” United States v. Hatfield, 591 F.3d 945, 948 (7th Cir. 2010).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

City of Reno v. Netflix, Inc.

Under Nevada law, courts determine whether a statute creates an implied right of action by considering: "(1) whether the plaintiffs are of the class for whose [special] benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether the legislative history indicates any intention to create or deny a private remedy; and (3) whether implying such a remedy is consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative [sch]eme." Baldonado v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 194 P.3d 96 (Nev. 2008).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

GCIU Emp. Ret. Fund v. MNG Enter.

Actuaries must make “reasonable” assumptions which offer the actuary’s “best estimate” of “anticipated experience” when assessing withdrawal liability for a pension plan. § 1393(a)(1). Using a rate which does not account for expected returns under the plan is not the “best estimate.” United Mine Workers of Am. 1974 Pension Plan v. Energy W. Mining Co., 39 F.4th 730, 740 (D.C. Cir. 2022).

Area(s) of Law:
  • ERISA

Hernandez v. Garland

Aliens convicted of “particularly serious crimes” are not eligible for withholding removal or asylum. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). A “particularly serious crime” is a discretionary determination made by weighing multiple factors. Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 383 (9th Cir. 2012).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Richards

The finding that a provision under § 3583 is unconstitutional (1) “applies only when a defendant commits a discrete set of federal criminal offenses specified”, (2) “takes away the judge’s discretion to decide whether violation of a condition of supervised release should result in imprisonment and for how long”, and (3) “limits the judge’s discretion in a particular manner: by imposing a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of ‘not less than 5 years.’” United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369, 2386 (2019). “[A] district court has discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences after revocation of multiple concurrent terms of supervised release.” United States v. Xinidakis, 598 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 2010).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

November 26 summaries

Save the Bull Trout et al. v. Williams

Claim preclusion bars a party in successive litigation from pursuing claims that were rained or could have been raised in a prior action. Media Rts. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 922 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir. 2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Green v. Miss United States of America

The First Amendment ensures that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” which includes “various forms of entertainment and visual expression as purely expressive activities.” U.S. Const. amend. I.; Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach, 621 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2010). These protections extend to theatrical productions that “frequently mix[] speech with live action or conduct,” and beauty pageants fall within this ambit. Se. Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 558 (1975).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Galvez v. Jaddou

"To determine whether the district court abused its discretion in entering the injunction, look to whether the trial court identified and applied the correct legal rule to the relief requested.” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1263 (9th Cir. 2009).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Ray v. Los Angeles Cnty. Dept. of Pub. Social Servs.

Under Bonnette v. Cal. Health & Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1983), an entity is a joint employer if the entity “(1) had the power to hire and fire [] employees, (2) supervised and controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, and (4) maintained employment records.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Jones v. Ryan

IAC claims require the defendant to show that (1) “counsel’s performance was deficient,” and (2) “the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Counsel’s failure to investigate and present evidence of a defendant’s mental defect constitutes deficient performance. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 396 (2000). Additionally, the failure to “make even [a] cursory investigation” into available means of obtaining additional funding for expert witnesses may amount to deficient performance under Strickland. See Hinton v. Alabama, 571 U.S. 263, 274 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Magassa v. Mayorkas

§ 1981 prohibits intentional discrimination and promises “[a]ll persons” the right to “make and enforce contracts.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). The statute provides that “[t]he rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.” Id. § 1981(c). When evaluating procedural due process claims, the Court weighs the plaintiff’s “(1) liberty [or property] interests; (2) the risk of an erroneous . . . deprivation through the current traveler redress procedures, and the probable value of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the government’s interest in national security, including the administrative burdens that additional procedural requirements would entail.” Kashem v. Barr, 941 F.3d 358, 364, 377 (9th Cir. 2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Online Merchants Guild v. Maduros

Under the TIA, "district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State." 28 U.S.C. § 1342.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.

A party seeking to invalidate a copyright registration under § 411(b) must demonstrate that (1) the registrant submitted a registration application containing inaccuracies, (2) the registrant knew that the application failed to comply with the requisite legal requirements, and (3) the inaccuracies in question were material to the registration decision by the Register of Copyrights. Roberts v. Gordy, 877 F.3d 1024, 1030 (11th Cir. 2017). A copyright registration certificate is relevant evidence of the validity of the copyright in question. United Fabrics Int’l, Inc. v. C&J Wear, Inc., 630 F.3d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 2011). A remittitur must reflect the maximum amount sustainable by the proof. But where the method the jury used to calculate its award can be ascertained by a review of the verdict, the judge is responsible for preserving the jury’s findings to the greatest extent possible by using that method of calculation in determining the remittitur amount.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Barclay v. Boskoski

11 U.S.C. § 522(f) “establishes as the baseline, against which impairment is be measured, not an exemption to which the debtor ‘is entitled,’ but one to which he ‘would have been entitled.’” Owen v. Owen, 500 U.S. 305, 311 (1991). The Court applies a state exemption law in effect on the filling date of the bankruptcy petition rather than on the creation date of the lien.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Mejia v. Miller

Under Bivens, “an implied damages remedy” when federal officers perform an unreasonable search and seizure. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Egbert, limits the availability of a Bivens cause of action in "new contexts" if there is, “[A]ny rational reason ... to think that Congress is better suited to weigh the costs and benefits” is enough to preclude extending Bivens." Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1805 (2022).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Qualified Immunity

Punchbowl, Inc. v. AJ Press, LLC

Under the Rogers test, the defendant must first “make a threshold legal showing that its allegedly infringing use is part of an expressive work protected by the First Amendment.” Gordon v. Drape Creative, Inc., 909 F.3d 257, 264 (9th Cir. 2018). If the defendant meets this burden, the Lanham Act does not apply unless “the defendant’s use of the mark (1) is not artistically relevant to the work or (2) explicitly misleads consumers as to the source or the content of the work.” Id.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

San Antonio Winery, Inc. v. Jiaxing Micarose Trade Co.

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1051(e), a trademark applicant may “either designate a U.S. person to be served with notice of process or submit to service through the director of the Patent Trademark Office.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Hooper v. Brnovich

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is the principle that “a state-court decision is not reviewable by lower federal courts,” and federal district courts are prevented from exercising subject matter jurisdiction and the de facto equivalents of such appeals.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Prescott v. Santoro

To establish a prima facie case of actual innocence, it requires more than asserting insufficient evidence to support his conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2); Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463, 476–77 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). It must be more likely than not that no reasonable fact finder could find Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, when taking the new evidence into consideration with the full record. Jones v. Taylor, 763 F.3d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Borden v. Efinancial, LLC

In determining a violation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), an autodialer must have the “capacity to use a random or sequential number generator to either store or produce telephone numbers to be called.” Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Farlow v. Kijakazi

Under Social Security regulations, "[o]pinions from treating physicians receive more weight than opinions from examining physicians, and opinions from examining physicians receive more weight than opinions from non-examining physicians." Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). "To reject the uncontested opinion of an examining or treating doctor, an ALJ must provide 'clear and convincing' reasons supported by substantial evidence." Id. at 830.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

Smartt v. Kijakazi

"When faced with contradicted medical testimony, an ALJ must provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record for rejecting a treating physician's opinion". Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

U.S. v. Nishida

A nonjudicial officer "may not decide the nature or extent of the punishment imposed upon a probationer...since under our constitutional system the right to impose the punishment provided by law is judicial. United States v Stephens, 424 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2005).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

In re Tillman

§724(a) concerns the trustee’s avoidance of qualifying liens, § 522 withdraws the property interest from the bankruptcy estate and is thus beyond the reach of the trustee for distribution for creditors.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Collier v. Lincoln Life Assurance Co. of Bos.

When a district court applies de novo review to an administrator’s denial of benefits, it affords no deference, evaluating only whether the correct choice was made. Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc).

Area(s) of Law:
  • ERISA

Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland

When evaluating alleged due process violations, courts weigh three factors: “first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). The private interest of a detained alien under § 1226(a) is lower than that of a detained U.S. citizen, and the governmental interests are significantly higher in the immigration detention context. In all events, “[d]ue process does not . . . require two hearings.” Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 n.14 (1970).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Becerra

“[B]ecause the canons of construction applicable in Indian law are rooted in the unique trust relationship between the United States and the Indians, . . . statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit.” Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 759 (1985).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Indian Law

United States v. Kirst

“An administrative investigation is a ‘proceeding’ within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. [§] 1505.” United States v. Vixie, 532 F.2d 1277, 1278 (9th Cir. 1976) (per curiam). Wrongful intent “may be inferred from circumstantial evidence.” United States v. Dearing, 504 F.3d 897, 901 (9th Cir. 2007)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Valiente v. Swift Transp. Co.

The Supreme Court has provided a two-prong test for determining when the doctrine of anti-retroactivity applies: (1) a court must determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach; and (2) a court must assess whether the action would have an impermissible retroactive effect. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 263-64, 280 (1994).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Clark v. Weber

The California prohibition on voting for the recalled governor as their own replacement on a recall ballot is not a severe restriction on the right to vote; similar to a term limit, the restriction is a “neutral candidacy qualification” with no distinction based on a protected class or arbitrary factor. Bates v. Jones, 131 F.3d 843, 847 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); see Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992).

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

McKnight v. Uber Techs., Inc.

Under In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 951 (9th Cir. 2015), there are three factors to consider a class settlement a coupon settlement: “(1) whether class members have ‘to hand over more of their own money before they can take advantage of’ a credit, (2) whether the credit is valid only ‘for select products or services,’ and (3) how much flexibility the credit provides, including whether it expires or is freely transferable.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

December 34 summaries

Cal. Dep't of Substs. Control v. Dobbas

Intervenors under Rule 24(a)(2) must assert an interest “protectable under some law,” which has a relationship with the “claims at issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2); see Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Perez-Camacho v. Merrick Garland

Under the Immigration Nationality Act (INA), “[a]n alien may file one motion to reopen proceedings and must file it within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. §1229a(c)(7)(A) and (C)(i). However, a motion to reopen is available if the deadline is eligible for equitable tolling which is available “when a petitioner is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error.” Salazar-Gonzalez v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 917, 920 (9th Cir. 2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Hooks v. Nexstar Broadcasting

“While a district court may not presume irreparable injury, it may, however, make permissible inferences based on evidence of violations of labor law." Frankl v. HTH Corp., 650 F.3d 1334, 1362 (9th Cir. 2011).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

U.S. v. Reiche

"A defendant is aware of the risk created by her conduct when she knows facts which, if considered and weighed in a reasonable manner, indicate a substantial and unjustifiable risk . . . , and the defendant knew of that risk.” United States v. Rodriguez, 880 F.3d 1151, 1162 (9th Cir. 2018).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Dreamstime.com, LLC v. Google, LLC

A Sherman Act 15 U.S.C. §2 claim includes two elements: "(1) the defendant has monopoly power in the relevant market, and (2) the defendant has willfully acquired or maintained monopoly power in that market." United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570-571 (1966).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Antitrust

Diaz-Rodriguez v. Garland

If an ambiguous term is open to multiple usages, the court will defer to the BIA’s “permissible construction.” Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Flaa et. al. v. Hollywood Foreign Press Ass'n et. al.

Unreasonable restraints on trade are prohibited under the Sherman Act, unreasonable restraints can be established two ways.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Antitrust

Gearing v. City of Half Moon Bay

“Pullman abstention is ‘an equitable doctrine that allows federal courts to refrain from deciding sensitive federal constitutional questions when state law issues may moot or narrow the constitutional questions.” San Remo Hotel v. City & County of San Franscisco, 145 F.3d (9th Cir. 1998). “[Abstention] is appropriate where (1) the federal constitutional claim ‘touches a sensitive area of social policy,’ (2) ’constitutional adjudication plainly can be avoided by a state court,’ and (3) a ‘possibly determinative issue of state law is doubtful.” Sinclair Oil Corp v. County of Santa Barbara, 96 F.3d 401 (9th Cir. 1996)(quoting Pearl INv. Co. v. City & County of San Francisco, 774 F.2d 1460 (9th Cir. 1985)).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

JAMES KLEISER, ET AL V. BENJAMIN CHAVEZ, ET AL

The third-party doctrine does not apply as an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement when the government seeks cell site location information. Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2219-21 (2018).

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

Waln v. Dysart Sch. Dist., et. al.

A plaintiff must demonstrate an infringement of their rights under the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Matias Rauda v. Jennings

Under 8 U.S.C. §1252(g), “no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases or execute removal order against any alien.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) v. Aria

A covered person under the CFPA is any person that engages in offering or providing a consumer financial product or service.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Twitter, Inc. v. Paxton

Petitioner failed to establish standing in a First Amendment retaliation case without showing “(1) an injury in fact..." Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 157-158 (2014).

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

United States v. Wells

Impermissible coercion requires both an objective threat of an adverse employment action for refusal to self-incriminate, and a subjective awareness of this penalty. See United States v. Smith, 821 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. Palmquist, 712 F.3d 640 (1st Cir. 2013); United States v. Friedrick, 842 F.2d 382 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Johnson v. Ryan

When analyzing an inmate’s procedural due process claim, the court engages in a two-step analysis, considering whether: (1) the inmate was deprived of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, and (2) that deprivation was accompanied by sufficient procedural protections. United States v. 101 Houseco, LLC, 22 F.4th 843, 851 (9th Cir. 2022). In order to determine whether the procedural protections provided are sufficient at the second step, the court looks at (1) the private interest affected; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation and the probable value of any additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the government’s interest. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). To establish a property interest in a benefit, “a person clearly must have. . . a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1974). Although “[a] state-created right can, in some circumstances, beget yet other rights to procedures essential to the realization of the parent right,” Conn. Bd. of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458, 463 (1981), a plaintiff does not have an independent right to those procedures. See Dist. Att’y’s Off. for Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52, 67–68 (2009). A First Amendment claim in the context of incarcerated individuals has five elements: (1) adverse action by a state actor against the inmate (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and the action (4) chilled the inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights and (5) did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal. Chavez v. Robinson, 12 F.4th 978, 1001 (9th Cir. 2021). To establish a retaliatory motive, an inmate “must show that his protected conduct was the substantial or motivating factor behind the defendant’s conduct.” Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1271 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Salguero Sosa v. Garland

"Cumulative-effect review is essential where [a] single isolated incident may not rise to the level of persecution, but the cumulative effect of several incidents may constitute persecution.” Korablina v. INS, 158 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1998).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Suski v. Coinbase, Inc.

Whether the court or the arbitrator decides arbitrability is an issue for judicial determination unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise. Oracle Am. Inc. v. Myriad Grp. A.G., 724 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2013) Issues of contract formation may not be delegated to an arbitrator. Ahlstrom v. DHI Mortg. Co., 21 F.4th 631, 635 (9th Cir. 2021).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

HayDay Farms, Inc. v. FeeDx Holdings, Inc.

Under Section 10(a)(4) the arbitration award must show a manifest disregard for law or be completely irrational to be thrown out.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

D.R. v. Redondo Beach Unified Sch. Dist.

"To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities...are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

Owino v. CoreCivic, Inc.

One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable [“numerosity”]; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class [“commonality”]; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class [“typicality”]; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class [“adequacy”]. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Barai

“When called on to interpret a statute, this Court generally seeks to discern and apply the ordinary meaning of its terms at the time of their adoption.” BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1537 (2021).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Brickman v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Under the TCPA an autodialer is a piece of equipment which stores or produces telephone numbers to dial using a random or sequential number generator.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, ET AL V. MICHAEL REGAN, ET AL

Before it can register a pesticide, EPA must conduct a “cost-benefit analysis to ensure that there is no unreasonable risk created for people or the environment from a pesticide.” Wash. Toxics Coal. v. EPA, 413 F.3d 1024, 1032 (9th Cir. 2005).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Pino v. Cardone Capital, LLC

“A person may be liable as a “seller” under the predecessor version of § 12(a) if the person either: (1) passes title to the securities to the plaintiff; or (2) “engages in solicitation,” i.e., “solicits the purchase [of the securities], motivated at least in part by a desire to serve his own financial interests or those of the securities owner.” Pinter v. Dahl, 486 U.S. 622, 643, 647–48 (1988).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Business Law

U.S. v. Fisher/Fisher

“Probable cause exists if ‘it would be reasonable to seek the evidence in the place indicated in the affidavit.'" United States v. Wong, 334 F.3d 831, 836 (9th Cir. 2003).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Bravo-Bravo v. Garland

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, if an alien has reentered the United States illegally after having been remove, “the prior order of removal is reinstated from its original date and is not subject to being reopened or reviewed.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Cara Jones, ET AL v. Google LLC, ET AL

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6501–06, gives the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) authority to regulate the online collection of personal identifying information about children under the age of 13.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

USA v. Macapagal

In United States v. Dhingra, 371 F.3d 557, 567 (9th Cir. 2004), the court explained that the plain language of the statute makes clear that the relevant inquiry is the conduct of the defendant, not the minor.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Dodge v. Evergreen Sch. Dist.

Political speech is “inherently controversial” and quintessential protected speech. See Nat’l Ass’n for Gun Rights, Inc., v. Mangan, 933 F.3d 1102, 1111–12 (9th Cir. 2019).

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

U.S. v. Anderson

“Under the community caretaking exception, police officers may impound vehicles that jeopardize public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular traffic.” Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2005).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Perez-Portillo v. Garland

The test for whether an individual produced sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of service by regular mail is “practical and commonsensical rather than rigidly formulaic,” and that in many cases the only proof may be the individual’s statement as well as circumstantial evidence. Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981, 988 (9th Cir. 2007).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Reichert v. Rapid Investments, Inc.

In Washington, a contract is formed when both parties accept services after they have a “reasonable opportunity to reject [the] offered services.” Jones v. Brisbin, 247 P.2d 891, 894 (Wash. 1952).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe v. City of Seattle

“Any party to a proceeding under this chapter aggrieved by an order issued by the Commission in such proceeding may obtain a review of such order in the United States court of appeals for any circuit wherein the licensee or public utility to which the order relates is located or has its principal place of business, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, by filing in such court, within sixty days after the order of the Commission upon the application for rehearing, a written petition praying that the order of the Commission be modified or set aside in whole or in part. . . . Upon the filing of such petition such court shall have jurisdiction, which upon the filing of the record with it shall be exclusive, to affirm, modify, or set aside such order in whole or in part.” 16 U.S.C. § 825l(b) (emphasis added).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Smith v. Agdeppa

When other evidence in the record, “such as medical reports, contemporaneous statements by the officer, the available physical evidence, and any expert testimony proffered by the plaintiff” is inconsistent with material evidence offered by the defendant, “[q]ualified immunity should not be granted.” Newmaker v. City of Fortuna, 842 F.3d 1108, 1116 (9th Cir. 2016).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Qualified Immunity

Back to Top