Michael Daly Hawkins

In Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., plaintiffs sued HP on behalf of themselves and a putative class, alleging that HP concealed a design defect in its Pavilion Notebook computers that caused power jack failures, rendering the laptops unusable after the warranty expired and violating California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. The district court dismissed the second amended complaint for failure to plausibly allege either an unreasonable safety hazard or HP's knowledge of the defect at the time of sale. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the complaint did not sufficiently plead an unreasonable safety defect and that undated or post-sale customer complaints failed to support an inference of HP's pre-sale knowledge.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In this case, Luis Gonzalez appealed the district court's denial of his motion to quash subpoenas directed at his wife's former trial counsel in her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas proceeding alleging ineffective assistance for not calling him as a witness. Gonzalez and his wife had been separately convicted of insurance fraud after their trials were severed, and Gonzalez sought to protect communications under a claimed joint defense agreement or privilege. The district court held that any such privilege must yield to the government's discovery needs in litigating the habeas claim. The Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that the joint defense privilege could not be unilaterally waived by one codefendant's habeas filing and that a Bittaker-style balancing test does not apply to an unwilling third party like Gonzalez. The court remanded for an in camera hearing to determine whether and when any joint defense arrangement ended.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Frank Wright, a property owner within the Incline Village General Improvement District but outside its 1968 boundaries, who was denied access to district-owned beaches under Ordinance 7 and Policy 136, which restrict use to those within the original boundaries per a restrictive covenant in the deed. Wright sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violations of his First Amendment rights to free speech and assembly and his Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights. The district court granted summary judgment to IVGID, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the beaches are not a traditional public forum and that the access restrictions do not infringe Wright's constitutional rights. The court reasoned that the policy is content-neutral, justified by the restrictive covenant and the fact that only 1968 property owners funded the beaches, and survives rational basis review as it serves legitimate government interests without targeting a suspect class or fundamental right.

free speechcivil rightsproperty

In United States v. Maddox, the government appealed the district court's order suppressing evidence of methamphetamine and a handgun found inside closed containers in a vehicle after the driver was arrested for reckless driving and driving with a suspended license. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the suppression, concluding that the warrantless search was not a valid search incident to arrest. The court reasoned that once the defendant was handcuffed and secured in the patrol car, he posed no threat to officer safety and there was no risk of evidence destruction, and neither probable cause nor exigent circumstances supported searching the vehicle or its contents. The opinion distinguishes the facts from prior precedent allowing such searches when the arrestee remains unsecured.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a former police officer, Oscar Brownfield, who sued the City of Yakima after being placed on administrative leave and ultimately terminated following a fitness-for-duty examination that found him unfit due to psychological issues. Brownfield alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act from the required exam, retaliation under the First Amendment for internal complaints about a coworker's performance and use of overtime, and violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act related to return-to-work certifications. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City. The court reasoned that the fitness exam was justified by Brownfield's repeated displays of emotional volatility on the job, that his complaints concerned personal workplace disputes rather than matters of public concern, and that the FMLA claims lacked merit because no proper medical clearance for psychological fitness had been provided.

civil rightslabor & employmentfree speech

This case involved five nonprofit hospitals challenging the methodology used by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to calculate base-year per resident amounts for Medicare direct graduate medical education payments under a 1989 regulation, specifically the Sequential Geographic Methodology applied when there were fewer than three comparable hospitals in a geographic wage area. The district court invalidated the methodology as arbitrary and capricious but upheld the 1989 regulation itself. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that the Provider Reimbursement Review Board lacked authority to grant expedited judicial review, depriving the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over the methodology challenge. The court therefore vacated the invalidation of the methodology and remanded the issue to the agency for initial determination, while affirming the validity of the 1989 regulation on both substantive and procedural grounds.

healthcarefederal power

Priscilla Vasquez appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment upholding the Social Security Commissioner's denial of Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, claiming improper discounting of her symptom testimony, failure to consider evidence of mental impairment, and erroneous application of res judicata. The Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a hearing to determine entitlement to benefits. The opinion addresses application of the crediting-as-true rule for claimant testimony on pain and symptoms, with the majority, concurrence, and dissent debating its scope, consistency with the Social Security Act, and alignment with other circuits' practices, ultimately denying en banc rehearing while noting the rule's ongoing validity in the circuit.

healthcareprocedurefederal power

The case concerned the timing of 'undue hardship' determinations under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) for discharging student loans in Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings, specifically whether such a determination could be made substantially before a debtor completes her multi-year repayment plan. Debtor Cathy Coleman sought an early ruling after filing her Chapter 13 petition and having her plan confirmed, while creditor Educational Credit Management Corp. moved to dismiss on ripeness grounds. The bankruptcy court denied the motion, the district court affirmed, and the Ninth Circuit reviewed the issue on interlocutory appeal. The court held that the determination was constitutionally and prudentially ripe at that stage because a concrete controversy existed between the parties, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007 permits filing at any time, and an early ruling would facilitate plan administration and classification decisions under § 1322(b)(1).

procedurefederal power

The case involved Tatyana Parussimova, a native and citizen of Kazakhstan who is an ethnic Russian and Orthodox Christian, seeking asylum after overstaying her visa, based on claims of past persecution and fear of future persecution on account of her ethnicity and religion. The Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals denied the application, concluding that Parussimova failed to establish that her assailants attacked her on account of a protected ground rather than other possible motives. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied her petition for review, applying the REAL ID Act standard and holding that substantial evidence supported the agency's determination because the record did not compel the conclusion that ethnicity was a central reason for the harm, given statements about her American employer and other factors. The court noted that an ethnic slur during the attack was insufficient by itself to meet the evidentiary burden.

immigrationcivil rights

The case involved African-American plaintiffs Pamela McDonald and her agent Kanya Coleman who sued Coldwell Banker listing agents for alleged racial and disability discrimination after their offer on a California home was not presented to the seller. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment under the Fair Housing Act and related state laws because there was no evidence of discriminatory intent by the listing agents, who declined to present the offer due to the seller's unwillingness to accept a carryback financing provision and concerns that the property would not appraise high enough. The court also rejected the disparate impact claim for lack of evidence that neutral practices disproportionately affected African-American or disabled buyers, and it found insufficient proof of disability discrimination under the ADA.

civil rightsproperty

This case concerns an appeal by Educational Credit Management Corp. challenging a district court's affirmance of a bankruptcy court's denial of a motion to dismiss. The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the bankruptcy court's order was interlocutory rather than final. It therefore vacated its prior opinion and remanded the matter to permit the district court to decide whether to certify the issue for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), with further proceedings to follow depending on that determination.

procedure

The case involved Tatyana Parussimova, a native of Kazakhstan and ethnic Russian Orthodox Christian, who sought asylum after overstaying her visa, claiming past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution based on her ethnicity and religion. An Immigration Judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals denied the application, concluding that Parussimova had not shown her attackers acted 'on account of' a protected ground under the INA. The Ninth Circuit denied her petition for review, holding that the Real ID Act requires an asylum applicant to prove a protected ground was 'one central reason' for the persecution and that the record did not compel reversal of the agency's finding of mixed motives, including references to her employment with an American company. The court noted that an ethnic slur uttered during the attack was insufficient by itself to establish the required causal link.

immigration

The case involved Sanjeeb Sharma Dhital, a Nepali national admitted to the U.S. on an F-1 student visa, who stopped attending classes and was placed in removal proceedings; he admitted having previously obtained asylum under a false identity by posing as a Bhutanese refugee fleeing persecution. Dhital applied for asylum, withholding of removal, CAT protection, and voluntary departure, but the immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals denied relief, citing the prior fraudulent grant of asylum and credibility issues related to his claims of fearing Maoists in Nepal. The Ninth Circuit exercised jurisdiction over the agency's application of the one-year asylum filing deadline exceptions under its precedent in Ramadan but denied the petition for review, affirming that Dhital's fraud and inconsistencies rendered him ineligible for the requested relief.

immigration

The case involved family members of Macedonian victims who died in a 2004 plane crash in Bosnia suing the U.S. manufacturer Raytheon under Macedonian law, alleging defects in an aircraft built and first delivered in 1980. The district court granted summary judgment for Raytheon, ruling that the suit was barred by the 18-year statute of repose in the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA). On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that GARA applied to preclude the action because the statute limits the ability to bring suits in U.S. courts and does not regulate conduct occurring abroad, so the presumption against extraterritoriality was not implicated.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatoryprocedure