January 22 summaries
SoCal Recovery, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa
Under the ADA, FHA, or FEHA, “actual disability” may be established by showing an impairment which “substantially limits” the ability to engage in “major life activities.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 3602(h), 12102(1); see Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013) (Persons recovering from drug and alcohol addictions are protected from housing discrimination.). On appeal, the panel held that sober living homes may satisfy the “actual disability” inquiry on a collective basis, by offering evidence of admission criteria and house policies. See Rohr v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 555 F.3d 850, 858–59 (9th Cir. 2009). Reversed.
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
U.S. v. Knight
Where a waiver would deprive the defendant of a constitutional right, courts generally require that it be a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent choice among alternative courses of action, made without coercion and with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences that would arise from the waiver. See, e.g., Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748–49 (1970); Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 29 (1992).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Lathus v. City of Huntington Beach
Under Hobler v. Brueher, 325 F.3d 1145, 1150 (9th Cir. 2003), an individual who is the “public face” of an elected official “can be fired for purely political reasons.”
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
U.S. v. Mongol Nation
“[T]he purposes of the Mongols Gang . . . included, but were not limited to,” several unlawful purposes. Because the indictment expressly contemplated that the association may exist for other purposes—perhaps including lawful ones—it is not facially inconsistent with Mongol Nation’s interpretation of the definition of “person” in the RICO statute[.]"
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Johnson v. Walmart, Inc.
When substantial evidence supports that two contracts are separate, independent agreements, an arbitration agreement consented to for an initial purchase “does not control the [second] agreement of the parties.” Int’l Ambassador Programs, Inc. v. Archexpo, 68 F.3d 337, 340 (9th Cir. 1995).
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
U.S. v. Amintobia
"In a case in which the illegal act by which a defendant procured naturalization was “a false statement made to government officials, the Government must prove, inter alia, that the alleged false statement sufficiently altered the processes for investigating and adjudicating naturalization applications “as to have influenced an award of citizenship.” Maslenjak v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1918, 1928 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Singh v. Garland
Under Flores Molina, an asylum applicant has faced past persecution when they have repeatedly fled their homes after receiving “immediate threat[s] of severe physical violence or death.” Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 634 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Wash. State Health Care Auth. v. Ctrs. For Medicare & Medicaid Servs.
State licensure and scope of practice standards must be tied to “factors external to the Medicaid program.” Planned Parenthood Ariz. Inc. v. Betlach, 727 F.3d. 960, 971 (9th Cir. 2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Tribal Law
Opara v. Yellen
After a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case for discrimination either based on the McDonnell Douglas factors or by offering direct or circumstantial evidence of discriminatory motive, “‘[t]he burden . . . shifts to the employer to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action.’” E.E.O.C. v. Boeing Co., 577 F.3d 1044, 1049 (9th Cir. 2009) (second brackets in original) (quoting Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115, 1123-24 (9th Cir. 2000)). Once an employer articulates some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action, the employee must show that the articulated reason is pretextual.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
United States v. Lillard
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to “be represented by an otherwise qualified attorney whom the defendant can afford to hire, or who is willing to represent the defendant even though he is without funds[.]” Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 624 (1989). An illegally excessive sentence violates a defendant’s substantial rights even if it runs concurrent with an equal or longer, valid sentence.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Doe v. USDC-NVL
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(3) "grants statutory authority to district courts to award restitution whenever a defendant agrees in a plea agreement to pay restitution." U. S. v. McAninch, 994 F.2d 1380, 1384 n.4 (9th Cir. 1993).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Shulman v. Kaplan
RICO’s standing provision states that “any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation” may bring a RICO claim in federal court to recover damages. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). The Controlled Substances Act provides that all "substances which have been manufactured, distributed, dispensed, or acquired in violation of [the CSA]" "shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them." 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Standing
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Haaland
“An agency action is ‘final’ only if it both (1) ‘mark[s] the consummation of the agency’s decision-making process—it must not be of a merely tentative or interlocutory nature,’ and (2) is ‘one by which rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.’ Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177–78 (1997).”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Grier v. Finjan Holdings, Inc.
Proof of scienter is not required to prove Section 14(e) claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78n(e). Varjabedian v. Emulex Corp., 888 F.3d 399, 407 (9th Cir. 2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Langer v. Kiser
“[N]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182. A facility is “all or any portion of buildings, structures, sites, complexes, equipment, rolling stock . . . roads, walks, passageways, parking lots, or other real or personal property, including the site where the building, property, structure, or equipment is located.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.104. Courts cannot use the doctrine of standing to keep meritorious ADA cases out of federal courts simply because they are brought by serial litigants.
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Brown v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Absent explicit authority through statute, the Tax Court does not have the jurisdiction to order a refund of any tax payment or payment towards an OIC. Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1, 8 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
United States v. Eller
18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) is applicable to a defendant who uses an adult proxy in the coercion of minors because the statute’s purpose would be wholly frustrated if liability could be avoided through the use of an intermediary. United States v. Macapagal, 56 F.4th 742, 744 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Antonio v. Garland
To satisfy the nexus requirement the defendant must show that he/she was persecuted “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); Fon v. Garland, 34 F.4th 810, 813 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Wit v. United Behavioral Health
The Rules Enabling Act forbids interpreting Rules 23 to ‘abridge enlarge or modify and substantive right.
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
NLRB v. Aakash, Inc.
Under section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of their employees.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
United States v. Baker
Where a “protective search goes beyond what is necessary to determine if the suspect is armed, it is no longer valid under Terry and its fruits will be suppressed.” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 373 (1993) (internal citation omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
D.O. v. Escondido Union School Dist.
A delay in proposing an autism assessment plan does not by itself constitute a procedural violation of IDEA. A procedural violation of IDEA constitutes a denial of FAPE if there are “procedural inadequacies that result in the loss of educational opportunity, or seriously infringe [on] the parents’ opportunity to participate in the IEP formulation process, or . . . cause[] a deprivation of educational benefits.” Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877, 892 (9th Cir. 2001).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
February 22 summaries
Center for Community Action v. FAA
“Judicial review of agency decisions under [NEPA] is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, which specifies that an agency action may only be overturned when it is ‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.’” Earth Island Inst. v. United States Forest Serv., 351 F.3d 1291, 1300 (9th Cir. 2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Rigsby, et al v. GoDaddy Inc., et al
"Where domain names are used to infringe, the infringement does not result from a registrar's registration activities, but from the registrant's use... in connection with goods and services." Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Solutions, Inc. 194 F.3d 980, 985 (9th Cir. 1999). “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” 47 USC §230(c)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Clarkson v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.
“USERRA § 4316(b)(1) requires employers to provide employees who take military leave with the same non-seniority rights and benefits as their colleagues who take comparable non-military leaves.”
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
Armstrong v. Newsom
"Relief prescribing more specific mechanisms of compliance is appropriate” under the PLRA where a district court has already attempted to remedy the situation “through less intrusive means, and those attempts have failed.” Armstrong v. Brown, 768 F.3d 975, 983-984 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Armstrong v. Shwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058,1071).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Pettibone et al. v. Russell
Under Bivens, a court must go through two steps. First, we ask whether the case presents “a new Bivens context”—i.e., is it “meaningful[ly]” different from the three cases in which the Court has implied a damages action.” Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1803 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
United States v. Barrogo
Requiring the authentication feature to be physically “on . . . [a] means of identification” would be inconsistent with § 1028(d)(7). The statute includes both physical and non-physical “means of identification,” therefore “used...on” in §1028(d)(1) includes non- physical authentication features that are naturally associated with a physical or non-physical “means of identification.” Here, that is a PIN “on” an account or associated card.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Hill v. Xerox Business Services, LLC
A party waives its right to compel arbitration when (1) it has knowledge of the right, and (2) it acts inconsistently with that right.
Area(s) of Law:- Alternative Dispute Resolution
San Diego County Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union
A plaintiff has standing to seek declaratory relief of non-infringement if he demonstrates a real and reasonable apprehension that he will be subject to liability if he continues with his course of conduct. Societe de Conditionnement en Aluminium v. Hunter Eng’g Co., 655 F.2d 938, 944-54 (9th Cir. 1981); Chesebrough-Pond’s Inc. v. Faberege Inc., 666 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1982).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Armstrong v. Michaels Stores, Inc.
The party asserting waiver of arbitration must demonstrate: (1) knowledge of an existing right to compel arbitration; and (2) intentional acts inconsistent with that existing right, and the burden for establishing waiver is no longer heavy.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Oberstein v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
An enforceable agreement may be found where “(1) the website provides reasonably conspicuous notice of the terms to which the consumer will be bound; and (2) the consumer takes some action, such as clicking a button or checking a box, that unambiguously manifests his or her assent to those terms” Berman v. Freedom Fin. Network, LCC, 30 F.4th 849, 855 (9th Cir. 2022)
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Bowerman, et al. v. Field Asset Services, Inc., et al.
A putative employer cannot be liable to an entire class of putative employees for failing to reimburse their business expenses and pay them overtime unless the putative employer failed to do so for each class member.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Bonta
State laws which burden the formation of arbitration agreements stand as an obstacle to the Federal Arbitration Act and are preempted by federal law. Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 683 (1996) and Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. P’ship v. Clark, 137 S. Ct. 1421 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
United States v. Michell
Under Rehaif, to obtain a conviction for felon-in-possession offenses, the government must prove both that defendant “knew he possessed a firearm” and “that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.” Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2200 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
US v. Farias-Contreras
“[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.” Santobello v. New York , 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Durate v. Stockton
Excessive force claims under § 1983 require an actual judgement of conviction, not its functional equivalent, to be barred by Heck v. Humphrey.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Lopez v. Garland
Though 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(a) does not expressly address cross-appeals, the rule requiring separate cross-appeals is an “unwritten but longstanding rule" that the BIA has consistently chosen to apply in its decisions. Greenlaw v. United States, 554 U.S 237, 244 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
United States v. Alvarez
“An alien can show that his due process rights were violated by defects in his deportation proceeding if he shows that his underlying state conviction was not, in fact, an aggravated felony.” United States v. Martinez, 786 F.3d 1227, 1230 (9th Cir. 2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Jane Sullivan, et al v. University of Washington
Under Garcetti, only “when an employee speaks as a citizen addressing a matter of public concern” do the Supreme Court’s “cases indicate that the First Amendment may be implicated.” Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 142 S. Ct. 2407, 2423 (2022)
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
In Re: American Rivers v. American Petroleum Institute
Under 9th Circuit precedent, permanent equitable remedies can only be awarded against illegal executive action. Likewise, the APA’s text is best read as authorizing a court to vacate an agency action only when that court first held that action unlawful.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Kappouta v. Valiant Integrated Services, LLC.
Under DCWPA, a disinterested observer would need to reasonably conclude that the disclosure was a violation of law related to a defense contract.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Credit One Bank v. Hestrin
Abstention, under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), is appropriate for civil enforcement actions when “(1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges; and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceeding.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Galaza v. Mayorkas
The ATSA establishes basic qualifications for the position of ATSA security screener, including physical requirements, and states that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, an individual may not be deployed as a security screener unless that individual meets” those requirements. 49 U.S.C. § 44935(f).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
March 29 summaries
Sinclair v. City of Seattle
To support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the risk created by the government was affirmatively created with deliberate indifference to danger, and that the risk was sufficiently particularized to the plaintiff.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
US v. Taylor
The standard of a Fourth Amendment analysis is reasonableness.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Twitter, Inc. v. Garland
Electronic communication service providers that are recipients of national security process are bound by statute to protect and not disclose classified information arising from that process.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Yamashita v. LG Chem., Ltd.
“For a claim to arise out of a defendant’s forum contacts requires causation, while a claim can relate to those contacts, even absent causation, where, for example, ‘a company . . . serves a market for a product in the forum State and the product malfunctions there.’” Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S.Ct. 1017, 1026–27 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
No On E v. David Chiu
“The district court applied exacting scrutiny, which requires a ‘substantial relation’ between the disclosure requirement and a ‘sufficiently important’ governmental interest.” Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 366–67 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
US v. Salazar
Despite the government’s knowledge of relevant information, defendants must provide all relevant information when invoking the safety valve under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Winsor v. Sequoia Benefits & Ins.
"To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered 'an invasion of a legally protected interest' that is 'concrete and particularized' and 'actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.'" Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 339 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560).
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
Wide Voice, LLC v. FCC
“Under § 706, [the court] must determine whether the agency’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Buero v. Amazon.com Services, Inc.
According to the Oregon Supreme Court, “Oregon law aligns with federal law regarding what activities are compensable. Therefore, under Oregon law, as under federal law, time that employees spend on the employer’s premises waiting for and undergoing mandatory security screenings before or after their work shifts is compensable only if the screenings are either (1) an integral and indispensable part of the employees’ principal activities or (2) compensable as a matter of contract, custom, or practice.”
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
O'Handley v. Weber
In order to support a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against a private party, a plaintiff must show that the private party exercised a right or privilege created by the state or is sufficiently entwined with or coerced by government power. Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Seaview Trading, LLC v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue
Regarding limitations statutes that bar the collection of taxes, there must be, “meticulous compliance by the taxpayer with all named conditions in order to secure the benefit of the limitation.” Lucas v. Pilliod Lumber Co., 281 U.S. 245, 249 (1930)
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Forbes Media LLC v. U.S.
Records may be unsealed when they have historically been made available to the public, when public access is beneficial to the procedure, and when unsealing the records is not outweighed by a compelling governmental interest. In re Copley Press, Inc., 518 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008).
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Gay v. Parsons
Absolute immunity may apply when "the official is performing a duty functionally comparable to one for which officials were rendered immune at common law." Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 897 (9th Cir. 2003)
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Radu v. Shon
The Hague Convention directs courts to “act expeditiously in proceedings for the return of children.” Convention Art. 11.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Van v. LLR, Inc.
FRCP Rule 23(b) requires that, when individualized issues that may cause difficulties in a class-action are substantiated, they must be reviewed by the district court to determine whether the claimant has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that questions common to the class predominated over that issue. Bowerman v. Field Asset Servs., 60 F.4th 459, 469 (9th Cir. 2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Murguia v. Langdon
“If affirmative conduct on the part of a state actor places a plaintiff in danger, and the officer acts in deliberate indifference to that plaintiff’s safety, a claim arises under §1983.” Penilla v. City of Huntington Park, 115 F.3d 707, 710 (9th Cir. 1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
State of Alaska Dep't of Fish and Game v. Federal Subsistence Board
There is an exception to the mootness doctrine and that exception is met when (1) the duration of the challenged action is too short to allow full litigation before it ceases or expires, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the plaintiffs will be subjected to the challenged action again. Karuk Tribe of Cal. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 681 F.3d 1006, 1018 (9th Cir. 2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Wildlife Law
Gutierrez-Alm v. Garland
In a transitional rules case, an immigrant's accrual of physical presence stops upon notice of an Order to Show Cause, even if the order does not list the time and place of the deportation proceedings.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Forrest v. Spizzirri
Section three of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) states that “upon determination by a court that an issue or issues are referable to arbitration, the court, on application of a party, ‘shall’ stay the trial of the action pending arbitration (provided the applicant is not in default). 9 U.S.C. § 3.”
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Glazer Capital Management, L.P., et al. v. Forescout Technologies, Inc. et al.
Where plaintiffs' adequately pled fraud under Section 10b and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange act, statements by defendant may still be protected when they are forward-looking under the PSLRA's safe harbor provision
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
Olsen v. State of California
A legislative “desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot constitute a legitimate government interest.” United States Dep't of Agric. v. Moreno 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Umana-Escobar v. Garland
Whether a protected ground meets the required nexus standard is a legal determination that the BIA is required to review de novo under 8 C.F.R. §1003.1(d)(3)(ii).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Yim v. Seattle
The ordinance must not “burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests.” Board of Trs. Of State Univ. Of N.Y. v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 478 (1989). If a speech is commercial, intermediate scrutiny should be applied, if non-commercial, strict scrutiny should be applied. If the right to exclude was fundamental, strict scrutiny should be applied.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Honey Bum, LLC v. Fashion Nova, Inc.
Whether summary judgement is appropriate where plaintiff cannot show a horizontal agreement between vendors in a per se group boycott; whether summary judgement of California TIPER and TIC tort claims are appropriate without valid outside illegal acts or valid contracts
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
Mejia v. Miller
"The existence of alternative remedial structures is reason enough not to infer a new Bivens cause of action.” Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1804 (2022),
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Schurg v. US
The federal government is immune under the discretionary exception if: (1) “[the] challenged actions involve an element of judgment or choice” and (2) “[the] judgment is of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield.” Esquivel v. United States, 21 F.4th 565, 573 (9th Cir. 2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
City of Los Angeles v. FAA
“NEPA requires that a federal agency consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action … [and] inform the public that it has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decision-making process.” Earth Island Inst. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 351 F.3d 1291, 1300 (9th Cir. 2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Alfred v. Garland
The distinction between principal and accomplice has been abrogated by Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (2014) such that a theft accomplice conviction meets the requirements to remove a non-citizen from the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Khalulyan v. Garland
An alien who is convicted of an offense that “involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000” may be removed from the United States. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
April 16 summaries
Ayanian v. Garland
A motion to reopen will be granted when a petitioner produces new, material evidence that the conditions of their country of origin have changed that sufficiently establishes “prima facie eligibility for the relief sought.” Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Bolden-Hardge v. California State Controller
“Leave to amend should be granted generously, after considering ‘bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.’” Bolden-Hardge v. California State Controller, 63 F.4th 1215, 1221 (2023) (quoting United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011)).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Duke v. Gastelo
“Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges; and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Aravelo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Porter v. Martinez
Where "expressive" honks are unlawful under Section 27001, the First and Fourteenth Amendment are not violated because Section 27001 blocks all unnecessary honks regardless of their purpose thus making the regulation content-neutral; additionally, Section 27001 passes intermediate scrutiny because the regulation furthers a substantial government interest unrelated to suppression of free expression and the regulation is narrowly tailored to its interest.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Silk v. Bond
The probate exception is limited to cases in which the federal courts would be called on to “(1) probate or annul a will, (2) administer a decedent’s estate, or (3) assume in rem jurisdiction over property that is in the custody of the probate court.” Goncalves v. Rady Children’s Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d 1237, 1252 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal citations omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States v. Ramos
“After conducting de novo review, the district court ‘may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.’” 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
York County v. HP, Inc
“[A] defendant establishes that a complaint is time-barred under §1658(b)(1) if it conclusively shows that either (1) the plaintiff could have pleaded an adequate complaint based on facts discovered prior to the critical date and failed to do so, or (2) the complaint does not include any facts necessary to plead an adequate complaint that were discovered following the critical date.”
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
United States v. Michell
In order to find that a plain error was made by the trial court, Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090, 2096-97 (2021) requires that there be (1) an error that is (2) plain and that (3) affects substantial rights. There must be a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Cal. Rest. Ass’n v. City of Berkeley
“EPCA’s preemption clause establishes that, once a federal energy conservation standard becomes effective for a covered product, ‘no State regulation concerning the energy efficiency, energy use, or water use of such covered product shall be effective with respect to such product[.]’ 42 U.S.C. § 6297(c).”
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
Pyankovska v. Abid
Where defendants’ violate the Federal Wiretap Act, Noerr-Pennington will protect petitioner’s First Amendment rights when the lawsuit in question burdened the individual’s rights as petitioner; it will not act as a carte blanche to violate statutes relevant to the lawsuit in question
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Mayes v. Biden
A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must establish: “(1) actual success on the merits; (2) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (3) that remedies available at law are inadequate; (4) that the balance of hardships justify a remedy in equity; and (5) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” Indep. Training & Apprenticeship Program v. Cal. Dep’t of Indus. Relations, 730 F.3d 1024, 1032 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal citations omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Gunn v. Drage
(1) Where Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 requires entry of a separate document as the judgment, judgment is not considered entered until “the judgment or order is entered in the civil docket under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a)” and such a separate document is filed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii). (2) If a defendant moves to strike an anti-SLAPP motion “on purely legal arguments,” courts must analyze the motion under Rules 8 and 12, but where a defendant asserts “a factual challenge,” courts must treat the motion to strike as “a motion for summary judgment,” triggering discovery. Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. For Med. Progress, 890 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir.), as amended, 897 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2018). (3) “'[A] cause of action arising from a lawyer’s conduct, when the conduct includes advice to a prospective client on pending litigation,’ is also protectable [under the anti-SLAPP statute].” Taheri L. Grp. V. Evans, 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 847, 853 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
San Diego County Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union
"Federal courts lack Article III jurisdiction to review questions of trademark validity unless the plaintiff faces a threat of infringement liability or otherwise suffers a justiciable injury that is fairly traceable to the trademark’s validity." San Diego County Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union, 65 F.4th 1012 (9th Cir. 2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Murphy Co. v. Biden
A claim against the president is justiciable if the ultra vires claim alleges that separation of powers principles were violated due to a lack of constitutional and statutory authority. Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Com. Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (1949); Sierra Club v. Trump, 963 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2020).
The president may expand land grants under the Antiquities Act without conflicting with the O&C Act because the Secretary of the Interior retains broad discretion to manage the land relevant to the O&C Act.
- Constitutional Law
Chicken Ranch Rancheria v. California
"In a pure federal question case brought in federal court, federal law governs attorney's fees." Disability Law Ctr. of Alaska, Inc. v. Anchorage Sch. Dist., 581 F.3d 936, 940 (9th Cir. 2009). The involvement of state law issues in such a case does not invalidate the rule.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Galanti v. Nevada Dep't of Corrections
Heck does not preclude an ex-prisoner’s § 1983 claim challenging denial of good-time credits because he could no longer bring that claim in a habeas petition Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 875-76 (9th Cir. 2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
May 26 summaries
Skagit Indian Tribe v. Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe
A court must interpret Final Decision I “so as to give effect to the intention of the issuing court.” Muckleshoot Tribe v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 141 F.3d 1355, 1359 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Narramore v. United States, 852 F.2d 485, 490 (9th Cir. 1988)).
Area(s) of Law:- Tribal Law
Clifton Capital Group, LLC. v. Sharp
“The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence…” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Kennedy, Jr. v. Warren
“Reputational harm stemming from an unretracted government action is a sufficiently concrete injury for standing purposes. “ Foretich v. United States, 351 F.3d 1198, 1212-13 (D.C. Cir. 2003). To draw the line between persuasion and coercion, the Second Circuit has formulated a non-exclusive four-factor framework that examines: (1) the government official’s word choice and tone; (2) whether the official has regulatory authority over the conduct at issue; (3) whether the recipient perceived the message as a threat; and (4) whether the communication refers to any adverse consequences if the recipient refuses to comply. National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, 49 F.4th 700, 715 (2d Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Kimball-Griffith, L.P. v. Burman
The QTA’s limitations period is a mere claims processing rule–not a jurisdictional requirement. Wilkins v. United States, 143 S. Ct. 870 (2023). “[T]o state a claim under the Takings Clause, a plaintiff must first demonstrate that he possesses a property interest that is constitutionally protected.” Turnacliff v. Westly, 546 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2008) (cleaned up).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Federal Trade Commission v. Hewitt
Rule 60(b)(4) applies “only in the instance where a judgment is premised either [1] on a certain type of jurisdictional error or [2] on a violation of due process that deprives a party of notice of the opportunity to be heard.” United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 271 (2010). “[I]t is hardly extraordinary” if a decision rests on a “then-prevailing interpretation” of the law and the Supreme Court later “arrive[s] at a different interpretation”—and such a change “is all the less extraordinary” where a party has displayed a “lack of diligence” in the original proceedings. Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 536-37 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Hollins v. Walmart, Inc.
“‘[A] state-law misbranding claim’ that would allow a ‘state to impose requirements . . . different from those permitted under the [Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act] . . . is preempted.’” Durnford v. MusclePharm Corp, 907 F.3d 595, 602 (9th Cir. 2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Roberts v. Springfield Utility Board
Unlike speech involving matters of public concern, which is protected, “speech that deals with individual personnel disputes and grievances and that would be of no relevance to the public’s evaluation of the performance of governmental agencies is general not of public concern." Roberts v. Springfield Utility Board, 68 F.4th 470, 475 (9th Cir. 2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Petrick
Absent exceptional circumstances, failure to raise arguments before an agency, such as in comments during a public-comment process, usually waives a litigant’s rights to make those arguments in court. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. EPA, 217 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2000). Under HFRA, the wildland-urban interface is “an area within or adjacent to an at-risk community that is identified . . . in a community wildfire protection plan.” 16 U.S.C. § 6511(16)(A).
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. USFWS, Et Al
U.S. Fish & Wildlife must designate any habitat as critical only if it is essential to species conservation. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 139 S. Ct. 361, 368 (2018). FWS acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” by designating two tracts of land as critical habitat when they relied on two irrelevant photographs of a single transitory jaguar and speculated that a jaguar may use the land for travel.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
GP Vincent II v. The Estate of Edgar Beard
To determine whether a previous action involved the same claim or cause of action as a later lawsuit, the Court looks at four factors: (1) whether the rights or interests established by the prior judgement would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action, (2) whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions, (3) whether the two suits involve infringement of the same right, and (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts. Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
United States v. Paulson
The “rule of the last antecedent” provides that “a limiting clause or phrase . . . should ordinarily be read as modifying only the noun or phrase that it immediately follows.” Lockhart v. United States, 577 U.S. 347, 351 (2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 26 (2003)).
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Wischmann v. Kijakazi
The ALJ has a general duty to resolve inconsistencies in the evidence, which may require obtaining additional evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520b(b) (setting out the steps the agency may take when “the evidence in [the claimant’s] case record is . . . inconsistent”); 20 C.F.R. § 416.920b(b) (same). That duty arises only where the purportedly inconsistent evidence is both significant and probative, as opposed to “meritless or immaterial.” Kilpatrick v. Kijakazi, 35 F.4th 1187, 1193-94 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
United States v. Williams
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has appellate jurisdiction over prejudgment orders for prosecutorial misconduct because the issue is “collateral to the merits of an action and too important to be denied immediate review,” Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 103 (2009). Additionally, disqualification of an entire U.S. Attorneys Office is only appropriate when grounded in “a clear basis in fact and law,” United States v. Gatto, 763 F.2d 1040, 1046 (9th Cir. 1985), which requires that (1) “a district court must find a strong factual predicate for blanket disqualification,” and; (2) “a district court must determine that the U.S. Attorney’s Office continued representation of the government will result in a legal or ethical violation.” United States v. Williams et al., __F.3d__ (9th Cir. 2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Friedenberg v. Lane County
Under 42 U.S.C. §233(a), Public Health Service employees are granted immunity from claims arising out of their performance of “medical, surgical, dental, or related functions.” Conduct qualifies as a “related function[,]” when it is "related" to the provision of medical services.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
United States v. Carrillo-Lopez
To establish discriminatory purpose for a facially neutral statute, the proponent must show a preponderance of evidence that “the lawmaking body . . . selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” See Pers. Adm’r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
United States v. Orozco-Barron
Under the Speedy Trial Act, a judge did not act improperly in granting an ends-of-justice continuance at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. “A global pandemic that has claimed more than half a million lives in this country [...] permit[s] a court to temporarily suspend jury trials in the interest of public health.” United States v. Olsen, 21 F.4th 1036 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Chaudhry v. Aragon
A “stigma-plus” [under Section 1983] claim requires “the public disclosure of a “stigmatizing statement by the government, the accuracy of which is contested, plus the denial of some more tangible interest such as employment. 68 F.4th at 1171
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Melville v. Shinn
A state post-conviction relief application is “pending as long as the ordinary state collateral review process is in continuance.” Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214, 219-20 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Umana-Escobar v. Garland
The BIA reviews the IJ’s underlying factual findings, such as what a persecutor’s motive may be, for clear error. See, e.g., Matter of N-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 526, 532 (BIA 2011). For CAT relief, an applicant must prove that the torture would be “inflicted by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. Bureau of Land Mgmt.
An order granting or denying intervention is only appealable from a final order in the underlying case. Alsea Valley Alliance v. Department of Commerce, 358 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2004). If that underlying case is remanded to an administrative agency, an appeal of a denial of intervention must be dismissed for mootness.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Jason Scott Collection, Inc. v. Trendily Furniture, LLC
There is no “intent to confuse requirement” to support the strong inference of secondary meaning where proof of copying is shown. P & P Imports LLC v. Johnson Enterprises, LLC, 46 F.4th 953, 962 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
United States v. Boam
(1) The “plain meaning” of the term “use” in the context of sec. 2251(a) means “to put into action or service,” “to avail oneself of,” or to “employ.” United States v. Laursen, 847 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2017). (2) Three of the Dost factors were used to determine whether the videos were sexually explicit conduct: "whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child’s genitalia or pubic area; whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude; and whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer." United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828, 832 (S.D. Cal. 1986).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
United States v. Walker
Time between a trial and indictment is properly excluded under the “ends of justice” provision of the Speedy Trial Act where factors weigh heavily in favor of exclusion, pursuant to United States v. Olsen, 21 F.4th 1036 (9th Cir. 2000). Specifically, delay due to the COVID-19 Pandemic will weigh heavily in favor of exclusion. Additionally, defendant’s challenge to the proper mental state of the “affecting commerce” element of the felon in possession statute fails because that element is purely jurisdictional, and therefore does not require a knowing mental state.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dickey v. Davis, in his capacity as Warden of San Quentin State Prison
Trial violations regarding witness testimony are material to a determination of a penalty phase verdict when the witness’s testimony could have made a difference to the jury’s imposition of the death penalty and, under the stricter Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) standard, where a verdict is already of questionable validity such that “additional evidence of relatively minor importance might be sufficient to create a reasonable doubt.” Under those high standards, a prosecutor violating Brady and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) through improper witness testimony, is material to penalty phase verdicts.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
United States v. Castillo
A defendant is a "career offender" if (1) the defendant was at least 18 years old at the time of the instant offense of conviction; (2) the instant offense is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense; and (3) the defendant has at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(a). A "controlled substance offense" is defined as "an offense. . .that prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) or the possession of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense." Id. § 4B1.2(b). A "controlled substance offense" is defined as "[A]n offense. . .that prohibits the manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) or the possession of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense." Id. § 4B1.2(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Porter v. Martinez
This opinion amended Porter v. Martinez, No. 21-55249, __F4th__ (9th Cir April, 2023) by altering Footnote 6 to include that, in asking for an injunction, plaintiff wanted an injunction against enforcing all bans on expressive honking, but the district court would have discretion in applying an injunction more narrowly. The opinion was otherwise unchanged.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
June 2 summaries
In re: Klamath Irrigation District v. U.S.D.C. Or. Medford
The Court applies the “Bauman factors,” in determining whether mandamus is warranted: (1) whether the petitioner has “no other adequate means, such as a direct appeal,” to attain the desired relief, (2) whether “[t]he petitioner will be damaged or prejudiced in a way not correctable on appeal,” (3) whether the “district court’s order is clearly erroneous as a matter of law,” (4) whether the order makes an “oft-repeated error, or manifests a persistent disregard of the federal rules,” and (5) whether the order raises “new and important problems” or legal issues of first impression. Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650, 654–55 (9th Cir. 1977). A clear error requires “firm conviction” that the district court “misinterpreted the law” or “committed a clear abuse of discretion.” In re Perez, 749 F.3d 849, 855 (9th Cir. 2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Figueroa Ochoa v. Garland
“[N]o court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding the granting of relief under” immigration laws governing the cancellation of removal and adjustment of status. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). “Judgment,” interpreted as “any authoritative decision,” “is the only [interpretation] that fits § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)’s text and context.” Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1622 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration