Ronald Murray Gould

The case involved California consumers who bought or leased Acura RL vehicles with an optional Collision Mitigation Braking System, alleging that Honda’s advertisements and brochures misrepresented the system’s ability to prevent or reduce collisions and omitted key limitations, in violation of California’s unfair competition, false advertising, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act laws. The district court certified a nationwide class of all such purchasers or lessees over a three-year period. The Ninth Circuit vacated the certification order, holding that common issues of law did not predominate because material differences existed between California consumer-protection statutes and those of the other 43 states where class members bought vehicles, requiring application of each state’s own laws under choice-of-law rules. The court further held that common issues of fact did not predominate, because class members could not be presumed to have seen or relied on the allegedly misleading advertisements without individualized proof of exposure.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., three non-California residents who worked as Oracle instructors sued the company, alleging they were entitled to overtime pay under California’s Labor Code and Business and Professions Code § 17200 for work performed partly in California, after Oracle classified them as exempt “teachers”; they also sought to apply § 17200 to alleged FLSA violations for work performed nationwide. The district court granted summary judgment to Oracle on all claims, finding California law inapplicable. On appeal, after the Ninth Circuit certified questions to the California Supreme Court, the court reversed on the first two claims concerning work inside California and affirmed on the third claim concerning work outside the state. It held that California’s overtime rules could apply because Oracle’s headquarters and the classification decisions were in California and the relevant work occurred there, creating sufficient state contacts, while § 17200 does not reach out-of-state work based solely on FLSA violations for nonresidents.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In United States v. Reyes, the Ninth Circuit addressed the second criminal conviction of Gregory Reyes, former CEO of Brocade Communications, on charges of securities fraud, making false SEC filings, falsifying corporate books and records, and making false statements to auditors. The charges arose from Reyes’s approval of backdated stock options granted to employees between 2000 and 2004, which were not properly recorded as non-cash compensation expenses under then-applicable accounting rules (APB 25), resulting in overstated net income and understated losses in the company’s financial statements and SEC filings. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find the misstatements material to investors, that no prosecutorial misconduct occurred regarding references to proxy voting or financial restatements, and that the district court properly instructed the jury on materiality under Basic v. Levinson and related precedents without prejudicial evidentiary or instructional errors.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

In Haile v. Holder, an Eritrean citizen who entered the U.S. in 1999 and overstayed her visa sought asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection after removal proceedings began. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied the first two forms of relief, finding her statutorily ineligible under terrorism bars because she had joined the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF) in 1977, raised funds, collected and forwarded documents for the group, and organized women, while the ELF had committed documented acts such as hijackings and bombings. The Ninth Circuit upheld those determinations, holding that substantial evidence supported the BIA’s conclusions that the ELF was a terrorist organization and that Haile had engaged in terrorist activities, and it dismissed or denied the related claims for lack of jurisdiction or exhaustion. However, the court granted deferral of removal under the CAT, concluding that the record compelled a finding that Haile was more likely than not to face torture by or with the acquiescence of the Eritrean government if returned.

immigration

The case involved Hershel Rosenbaum, who was arrested by Washoe County officers while selling free promotional radio station tickets outside a fair with his young children present; he was charged with child endangerment and obtaining money under false pretenses, though no such violations occurred under Nevada law and all charges were later dropped. Rosenbaum and his children sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging an unlawful arrest in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment right to family integrity due to officers' comments to the children. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on qualified immunity grounds. The Ninth Circuit reversed on the unlawful arrest claim, holding that the officer lacked probable cause and that qualified immunity could not be based on a statute discovered only after the arrest, and affirmed on the family integrity claim, concluding that the officers' conduct did not shock the conscience. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the arrest claim.

criminal lawcivil rightsfamily lawprocedure

The case involved property owners Hinds Investments suing manufacturers of dry cleaning equipment under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and other laws, alleging that the manufacturers contributed to groundwater contamination by perchloroethylene (PCE) through the design of machines that produced hazardous waste and instructions for their use at dry cleaning stores. The district court dismissed the RCRA claims, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court held that RCRA liability for 'contributing to' the handling or disposal of hazardous waste requires active involvement or a measure of control over the waste at the time of disposal, which was not alleged here since the manufacturers' role was limited to passive design and instruction. The opinion distinguished cases where defendants had authority or ongoing control over waste practices and rejected liability based solely on equipment design that others misused.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved Team Enterprises, a dry cleaning business that used perchloroethylene (PCE) and disposed of contaminated wastewater down a sewer drain, leading to soil pollution that required cleanup under state oversight. Team sued the manufacturer of its recycling equipment, R.R. Street & Co., along with other parties, seeking contribution for cleanup costs under CERCLA as well as damages for trespass and nuisance under state law. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Street, holding that the company could not be liable as an arranger under CERCLA because it never owned or possessed the PCE and did not arrange for its disposal. The court also rejected the state-law claims, finding that Team had consented to the equipment's presence and its own actions caused the contamination, precluding any actionable trespass or nuisance. The opinion emphasized the statutory requirements for arranger liability and the lack of evidence showing Street's direct involvement in the disposal process.

environmenttorts & liabilityprocedure

In Brown v. Horell, a state prisoner convicted of first-degree murder, attempted murder, and attempted robbery sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing that his coerced statements were improperly admitted at trial and that the trial court violated his rights by excluding expert testimony on police interrogation techniques. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the petition. The court held that, under the deferential standards of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), the state appellate court's rejection of the claims was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent regarding the admissibility of confessions and the right to present a complete defense.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

The case involved Najeeb Rahman, who pleaded guilty to aggravated identity theft and fraudulent transactions with access devices under a plea agreement waiving his right to appeal any aspect of his convictions. Rahman later moved to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging ineffective assistance and miscommunication by his original counsel, but the district court denied the motion after finding no supporting evidence. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the case, ruling that the plea agreement's broad waiver covered appeals from the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea and that the waiver was knowing and voluntary because the record lacked any basis for an ineffective-assistance claim. The court noted that such claims could be pursued in collateral proceedings instead.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved homeowners who sued in Nevada state court to quiet title to their property after a nonjudicial foreclosure sale, alleging lack of proper notice and that the purchasing bank did not hold the note; the bank had previously filed a concurrent unlawful detainer action in state court seeking possession. After removal of the quiet title suit to federal district court, the homeowners moved to remand on jurisdictional grounds. The Ninth Circuit did not resolve the merits or the remand motion but instead certified two questions to the Nevada Supreme Court: whether a quiet title action under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.010 premised on an invalid trustee's sale, and an unlawful detainer action under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 40.255(1)(c), are properly characterized under Nevada law as in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem. The court reasoned that this characterization would determine whether the prior exclusive jurisdiction doctrine required the federal court to yield to the state court proceedings over the same property.

propertyprocedure

This case involved gun show promoters challenging an Alameda County ordinance that banned firearms and ammunition on county property, which prevented gun shows at the public fairgrounds. The Ninth Circuit held that the Second Amendment applies to the states via incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The court upheld the ordinance as constitutional, concluding that it did not substantially burden the core right to keep and bear arms for self-defense because it only restricted the location of gun sales rather than prohibiting firearm possession or use in general. The decision applied intermediate scrutiny to the regulation and found it reasonably related to the county's interest in public safety.

gunscivil rights

The case involved Anthony Smith and his wife suing Santa Monica Police Sergeant Robert Almada for false arrest, malicious prosecution, suppression of exculpatory evidence, and related due process claims arising from an arson investigation and prosecution. Smith was accused of setting fire to a furniture store using gasoline-filled bottles that contained his mail; he faced two trials that ended in mistrials before the charges were dismissed. The district court granted summary judgment to Almada, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that any nondisclosed evidence, including a witness's allegedly false identification of Smith at the scene, was not material and would not have changed the outcome of the arrest or trials.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

In United States v. Diaz-Lopez, the defendant, a Mexican citizen previously removed from the United States, was convicted after a bench trial of illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) based on evidence that he was found in California without permission to return. On appeal, Diaz challenged the admission of a Border Patrol agent's testimony that a search of the CLAIMS database using his identifying information found no record of a Form I-212 application for permission to reapply for admission. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding that the testimony was properly admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(10) because the agent established sufficient foundation through his familiarity with the database and government recordkeeping practices. The court further held that the best evidence rule did not apply, as the testimony concerned the absence of a record rather than the contents of any specific writing or data. The panel rejected claims of insufficient trustworthiness or need for expert testimony on database accuracy.

immigrationcriminal law

The case involved defendant Andrew Hantzis, who was convicted after a jury trial of possessing with intent to distribute and distributing at least fifty grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii), and who was sentenced to 211 months' imprisonment. Hantzis appealed, arguing that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel because the district court's initial Faretta colloquy was inadequate, the court failed to renew Faretta warnings before an evidentiary hearing and sentencing, and the court declined to appoint counsel for sentencing. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the original colloquy was sufficient to establish a knowing and intelligent waiver, that no significant change in circumstances required renewed warnings, and that the district court did not err in refusing to appoint counsel given Hantzis's repeated changes of counsel and dilatory conduct that delayed sentencing for over three years after trial.

criminal law

In Smith v. Almada, plaintiffs Anthony and Teresa Smith sued Santa Monica Police Sergeant Robert Almada under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging false arrest, malicious prosecution, and suppression of exculpatory evidence in violation of due process, along with a related familial relations claim, arising from an arson prosecution of Anthony Smith that ended in a mistrial. The district court granted summary judgment to Almada, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The majority held that the alleged failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, including a false witness identification and information about other suspects, did not violate Brady v. Maryland because the criminal trial resulted in a hung jury rather than a conviction, so Smith could not show the requisite prejudice to his right to a fair trial. The court reasoned that Brady obligations and related constitutional claims focus on preventing unfair convictions, and a mistrial does not trigger liability for the suppression. The dissent argued that due process requires disclosure regardless of the trial outcome.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved two class action lawsuits filed by owners of Jaguar Land Rover LR3 vehicles who claimed that a factory alignment geometry defect caused premature and uneven tire wear, leading to claims for breach of warranties and violations of state consumer protection laws in Michigan and Florida. The district court denied class certification, finding that the plaintiffs could not prove that a majority of class members experienced the defect's effects. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that common questions such as the existence of the defect and breach of warranty predominated over individual issues, and that a class action was superior for efficient adjudication of the claims.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case was a civil enforcement action by the SEC against Platforms Wireless International Corporation and its former CEO William Martin, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The district court granted partial summary judgment, finding that the defendants sold unregistered securities to the public in violation of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 and issued one fraudulent press release about their ARC System technology in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. It ordered the defendants to jointly and severally disgorge approximately $1.75 million in proceeds plus nearly $1 million in prejudgment interest. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the partial summary judgment and disgorgement order on the grounds that the sales lacked required registration and the press release contained material misrepresentations, while dismissing the SEC's cross-appeal regarding other press releases as moot.

business & regulatory

This case concerned whether Hearthside Residential Corporation qualified as a 'current owner and operator' under CERCLA and thus could be held liable for cleanup costs that the California Department of Toxic Substances Control incurred on a residential site allegedly contaminated by PCBs from an adjacent property that Hearthside had owned. Hearthside had purchased the source property in 1999, agreed to remediate it, but sold it in 2005 before the state filed its reimbursement suit in 2006. The Ninth Circuit held that ownership status for CERCLA liability is fixed at the time the cleanup costs are incurred rather than when the recovery lawsuit is filed. The court reasoned that this timing advances CERCLA's goals of encouraging prompt settlement, efficient remediation, and involving owners in the cleanup process while noting that routine factual inquiries into when costs accrued are manageable.

environmentpropertybusiness & regulatory

In Quezada v. Scribner, petitioner Alvaro Quezada filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state murder and conspiracy convictions, claiming the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland by withholding and misrepresenting evidence of substantial compensation paid to a key government witness, Joseph Aflague. The district court denied the petition, finding the claim rested on conjecture without factual support. On appeal, Quezada moved to remand after discovering new evidence in 2009 that Aflague received undisclosed payments unrelated to other cases, despite prior requests and denials. The Ninth Circuit held that Quezada made a substantial showing of newly discovered evidence that could not have been obtained earlier with due diligence and that, if proven, would support relief, requiring an evidentiary hearing under Townsend v. Sain. The court remanded with instructions to assess the evidence's admissibility, credibility, and materiality, and to address exhaustion, procedural bars, and potential stay-and-abey procedures.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved defendant Neville King appealing a district court's revocation of his supervised release and imposition of new conditions after he was found to have violated several terms following a prior cocaine distribution conviction. The violations included associating with convicted felons through phone calls and emails, failing to report his association with a felon employer, and misrepresenting his employment on reports to his probation officer. The district court sustained four of the allegations, revoked the supervised release term in part, and added conditions allowing searches of King and his property upon reasonable suspicion as well as restricting his computer use and associations with inmates. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the violations were supported by credible testimony and admissions, and that the new conditions were reasonably related to the offense, King's history of deception, deterrence of future crimes, and public protection under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d).

criminal lawprocedure