Johnnie B. Rawlinson

The case involved a parent (Pat Oman) suing Portland Public Schools and related officials on behalf of her disabled child (C.O.) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), alleging the district failed to provide a free appropriate public education through an appropriate individualized education program and seeking nominal damages, among other claims. The Ninth Circuit held that Oman’s IDEA-related cross-claims must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and reversed the district court’s ruling that the school district was liable for nominal damages under the IDEA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reasoned that the IDEA’s enforcement scheme—centered on procedural safeguards, administrative hearings, and equitable relief such as compensatory education—does not authorize claims for monetary damages, including nominal damages, a conclusion reinforced by Congress’s separate policies supporting competitive-admission magnet and charter programs. The court affirmed the district court’s judgment on all remaining counts.

civil rightsprocedurefederal power

The case involved homeowners Todd and Karen Brandt who sued their flood insurer, American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, for breach of contract and bad faith under Washington law after a disputed claim payment from a 2007 flood. After the insurer failed to respond to the complaint served via the state insurance commissioner, the district court entered a default judgment exceeding $655,000. The district court later granted the insurer's motion to set aside the default and judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) for excusable neglect, finding the failure to respond culpable but not intentional or in bad faith, and noting a meritorious defense plus curable prejudice. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that a district court retains discretion to set aside a default judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) even with a culpability finding, as the excusable neglect inquiry is equitable and considers all relevant factors including a meritorious defense.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

Michael Marlo sued United Parcel Service (UPS) for unpaid overtime, meal, and rest-period wages after being classified as an exempt executive and administrative employee under California’s Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 9. The district court initially certified a class of full-time supervisors but later decertified it on the ground that common issues of law or fact did not predominate over individual ones, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion because employee surveys and testimony revealed variations in job duties depending on facilities, managers, and customer bases, making class-wide proof unreliable.

labor & employment

The case involved Mexican plaintiffs who suffered severe eye injuries after cataract surgeries in Mexico using a allegedly defective viscoelastic product manufactured by defendant Advanced Medical Optics, a Delaware corporation headquartered in California; they sued in federal district court in California for product liability and related claims. The district court dismissed the action on forum non conveniens grounds, determining that Mexico was an available and adequate alternative forum, without imposing conditions on the dismissal. Plaintiffs appealed and also filed suit in Mexico, but the Mexican court declined jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit held that while the district court's initial analysis was not erroneous based on the record at the time, subsequent events required reconsideration of whether Mexico remained an available forum, and thus vacated the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

proceduretorts & liability

Hossein Zeinali, an engineer of Iranian descent employed by Raytheon, was terminated after the Department of Defense denied his application for a security clearance, which the company had stated was required for his position. He sued under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, alleging that Raytheon discriminated against him on the basis of race and national origin by retaining non-Iranian engineers who lacked clearances. Raytheon argued that federal courts lack jurisdiction under Egan and that Zeinali failed to meet his evidentiary burden under McDonnell Douglas. The Ninth Circuit held that jurisdiction exists because the claim challenges the evenhanded application of the company's policy rather than the merits of the government's clearance decision, and reversed the district court's dismissal after finding sufficient evidence that the policy may have been applied in a discriminatory manner.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved Kenneth Edward Watson appealing the district court's revocation of his supervised release and imposition of a three-year prison sentence after he failed to comply with reporting requirements starting in 1995. Watson argued that his eleven arrests by Minnesota state authorities between 1996 and 2007 ended his fugitive status, so his term of supervised release had expired long before his 2009 federal arrest and the court lacked jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit held that the state arrests provided neither actual nor constructive knowledge to federal authorities of his whereabouts, as they involved only state crimes and officials with no indication of federal access to the information. The court therefore concluded that fugitive tolling continued until Watson's federal arrest, affirming the district court's jurisdiction and sentence.

criminal law

The case involved Adolfo Barrientos, who had received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge of debt to Wells Fargo Bank under 11 U.S.C. § 524, alleging that the bank violated the discharge injunction by verifying the debt to credit reporting agencies after being contacted about a dispute. Barrientos filed an adversary complaint seeking contempt sanctions, an injunction, and other relief, which the bankruptcy court dismissed and the district court affirmed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, ruling that a motion for contempt to enforce a § 524 discharge injunction must be brought via motion in the original bankruptcy case under Bankruptcy Rule 9014 rather than as an adversary proceeding, consistent with precedent establishing no private right of action for such violations.

procedurefederal power

The petitioners, Mexican nationals who entered the United States illegally in 1991, applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A) but were ruled ineligible by an immigration judge because they lacked ten years of continuous physical presence when served with notices to appear in 2001. They appealed, arguing that the continuous-presence clock should be equitably tolled due to bad advice from a private immigration service that triggered removal proceedings and that the statute's allowance for intermittent absences created an equal-protection violation by treating similarly situated aliens differently. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial, and the Ninth Circuit upheld that ruling, holding that equitable tolling is unavailable for harms external to immigration procedures themselves and that Congress had a rational basis for requiring a ten-year span rather than a total-days count.

immigrationcivil rights

The case involved environmental organizations challenging the U.S. Forest Service's approval of a timber salvage project following a wildfire in a national forest, seeking a preliminary injunction to halt the logging. The district court denied the injunction, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision and directed the issuance of the injunction. The court clarified that, even after the Supreme Court's decision in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the 'serious questions' test remains a valid part of the sliding-scale approach for evaluating preliminary injunctions, allowing flexibility when balancing the likelihood of success on the merits against other factors like irreparable harm.

environmentprocedure

The case involves environmental groups challenging the U.S. Forest Service's decision to proceed with a timber salvage logging project on about 1,652 acres of a Montana national forest burned in a 2007 wildfire, after the agency issued an emergency determination bypassing administrative appeals. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, which the district court denied under the Winter v. NRDC standard, finding insufficient likelihood of irreparable injury and success on the merits. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that plaintiffs raised serious questions on the merits regarding compliance with environmental laws, that the balance of hardships tipped sharply in their favor, and that they satisfied the other Winter prongs including likelihood of irreparable harm and public interest. The court also clarified that the 'serious questions' approach to preliminary injunctions remains valid post-Winter when applied as part of the full four-element test, preserving equitable flexibility. The opinion amends prior precedent to align with this framework.

environmentprocedure

The case concerned the U.S. Forest Service's Smith Creek Project in Montana's Gallatin National Forest, which authorized logging and prescribed burning on hundreds of acres to reduce wildfire risk, insect and disease threats, and to promote habitat diversity. Environmental groups challenged the project under NEPA and NFMA, arguing inadequate environmental review and noncompliance with the governing forest plan. The district court granted summary judgment to the Service on all claims. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment in most respects, finding the agency's analyses sufficient under NEPA and other NFMA provisions. It reversed solely on the NFMA claim, holding that the project violated the Gallatin Forest Plan's requirement to maintain two-thirds elk hiding cover over time because the Service's interpretation permitting successive reductions was plainly erroneous.

environment

The case involved Ernesto Gallegos, who pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and escape from federal custody while awaiting sentencing on the first charge. He appealed his sentences, arguing that the district court's partially concurrent and partially consecutive sentence violated 18 U.S.C. § 3584 and that denying an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction while applying an obstruction-of-justice enhancement amounted to impermissible double counting under the Sentencing Guidelines. The Ninth Circuit reviewed both claims for plain error and affirmed the sentences, concluding that the statute allows partial concurrency and that the two adjustments addressed distinct purposes.

criminal law

The case involved environmental groups challenging the U.S. Forest Service's approval of a post-wildfire timber salvage logging project in Montana's Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, which included cutting dead or dying trees and building temporary roads. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to halt the project, arguing violations of environmental laws, but the district court denied it under the Winter standard by finding insufficient likelihood of irreparable harm and success on the merits. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the "serious questions" test for the merits remains valid after Winter and that the balance of hardships tipped sharply in plaintiffs' favor given the undisputed logging of over 1,600 acres. The court emphasized equity's need for flexibility in evaluating preliminary relief on an expedited record where harm is more predictable than ultimate success.

environmentprocedure

The case concerned a prisoner's lawsuit against California corrections officials challenging hair-length grooming rules as violating his First Amendment free exercise rights and later claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The prisoner obtained temporary injunctive relief and some penalties rescinded before the case was dismissed as moot without a final ruling on the merits. The district court awarded attorneys' fees to the law clinic that represented him. The Ninth Circuit reversed the fee award, holding that the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a plaintiff to establish an actual violation of protected rights to recover fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and neither preliminary injunctions nor voluntary state actions sufficed.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedurereligious liberty

The case involved Nicholas R. Gossi, who pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud after being charged with bank fraud and related offenses in connection with a mortgage loan. Following his sentencing, the district court imposed a restitution order requiring Gossi to pay $288,087.12 to the victim mortgage company under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, based on the difference between the unpaid loan balance and the later-appraised value of the returned property. Gossi appealed, contending that the court used the wrong date to value the returned property, treated him more harshly than codefendants, and ordered restitution for losses beyond those that were intended or foreseeable. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that the district court's property valuation fell within its discretion and that the restitution properly covered losses proximately caused by Gossi's conduct.

criminal law

Vincent Gamboa, convicted in 1993 of distributing and conspiring to distribute cocaine base and sentenced to 360 months in prison, filed a petition for a writ of audita querela after his prior motions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 were denied as untimely under AEDPA. He argued that extraordinary circumstances, including the inability to raise Booker-related sentencing claims earlier due to then-existing Supreme Court precedent and procedural deadlines, justified the writ. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the petition. The court reasoned that a federal prisoner may not use audita querela to challenge the legality of a sentence if the relief sought is available under § 2255, as circuit precedent establishes no gap in post-conviction remedies that common-law writs can fill and Booker does not apply retroactively on collateral review.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved members of the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians who were disenrolled from the tribe for failing to prove lineal descent from original members, as required by the tribal constitution. The disenrolled members petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under the Indian Civil Rights Act, arguing that their disenrollment constituted an unlawful detention. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioners were not detained within the meaning of the statute. The court reasoned that federal courts generally do not have jurisdiction to review tribal decisions on membership and that the disenrollment did not impose sufficient restraints on liberty to qualify as detention under 25 U.S.C. § 1303.

civil rightsfederal power

North County Communications, a competitive local exchange carrier, sued several commercial mobile radio service providers, alleging they failed to compensate it for terminating calls on its network as required by the Federal Communications Act. The district court dismissed the declaratory judgment claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that no private right of action existed to enforce the compensation arrangements. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that 47 U.S.C. §§ 251(b)(5), 201(b), 206, and 207, together with 47 C.F.R. § 20.11, do not authorize private enforcement in federal court. The court reasoned that the statute and FCC decisions, including the T-Mobile Decision, favor contractual arrangements or state commission proceedings over direct federal lawsuits for such intercarrier compensation disputes.

business & regulatory

In Jeffredo v. MacArro, members of the Pechanga Band of the Luiseño Mission Indians challenged their disenrollment from the Tribe for failing to prove lineal descent from original members, as required by the Tribe's constitution. They petitioned for habeas corpus relief under the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1303, arguing that disenrollment and related restrictions amounted to unlawful detention. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioners were not detained within the meaning of the statute. The court reasoned that tribal membership decisions are generally not subject to federal review and that the loss of tribal benefits and status did not constitute the requisite custody or restraint on liberty for habeas purposes.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

The case concerned whether the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) applied to Baby Zack’s Smoke Shop, a retail business on the Puyallup Indian Reservation owned and operated by tribal members Paul and Nick Matheson, which sold goods shipped in interstate commerce and had annual sales over $500,000. The Secretary of Labor had subpoenaed the business’s records, determined that overtime wages had not been paid, and sued for enforcement. The district court granted summary judgment to the Secretary, held that the FLSA applied, ordered payment of back wages, and provided for automatic appointment of a receiver if payment was not made. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that the FLSA, as a statute of general applicability, applied to the business because it did not fall within the intramural-affairs or treaty-rights exceptions, and that the Secretary therefore had authority to inspect the records; it vacated the automatic-receivership provision as premature because no findings on necessity had been made.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power