The case involved multiple lessees who had entered into agreements with the City and County of Honolulu under Chapter 38, a local ordinance authorizing the city to pursue eminent domain proceedings to convert residential leasehold properties into fee simple ownership for the lessees. After the city council repealed Chapter 38 via ordinance, halting ongoing condemnation processes, the lessees sued the city, alleging that the repeal impaired their contractual rights in violation of the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution and seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted summary judgment to the city on these claims. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the agreements imposed no obligation on the city to complete condemnations but only to conduct preliminary reviews and hearings, and that the repeal did not breach any mutual contractual duties or render the contracts illusory.
The case concerned whether Ferenc Szalai's contempt judgment for violating the stay-away provision of an Oregon Family Abuse Prevention Act restraining order qualified as a violation of a protection order under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(ii), rendering him removable from the United States. The Ninth Circuit denied Szalai's petition for review and affirmed the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision that the violation triggered removability. The court applied the categorical and modified categorical approaches under the Immigration and Nationality Act to analyze the state court records and concluded that the conduct met the statutory criteria for a removable offense based on breach of a domestic protection order.
In Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, plaintiffs sued two Secret Service agents under Bivens, alleging that the agents violated their First Amendment rights by ordering local police to relocate an anti-Bush demonstration away from the president's location while allowing a nearby pro-Bush demonstration to remain in place. The district court denied the agents' motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds. On interlocutory appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed that denial, holding that the complaint failed to plausibly allege viewpoint discrimination rather than legitimate security motives under the standards of Twombly and Iqbal, but granted leave to amend; the court also dismissed the appeal of the alternative summary judgment motion for lack of jurisdiction.
Mary Bray appealed the denial of her applications for social security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, arguing that the administrative law judge failed to make required findings on her transferable skills, improperly discounted her testimony and a treating physician's opinion, did not account for mental impairments, and mechanically applied age categories in the Medical Vocational Guidelines. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's affirmance of the Commissioner's decision and remanded the case. The court held that the ALJ erred by not making findings concerning whether Bray possessed transferable skills, as expressly required by Social Security Ruling 82-41. This failure was sufficient to warrant reversal.
The case involved a former Alaska Airlines employee who filed a class action in Oregon state court alleging that the airline willfully violated state wage payment law, Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.140, by failing to pay all wages due upon termination. The airline removed the action to federal district court, contending that the Railway Labor Act completely preempted the claim because it arose under a collective bargaining agreement and required arbitration; the district court agreed, denied remand, and dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit reversed, ruling that the RLA does not completely preempt state-law wage claims and therefore provides only an ordinary federal defense rather than a basis for federal jurisdiction or removal. The court held that the well-pleaded complaint rule applied and instructed the district court to vacate the judgment and remand the case to state court.
The case concerned Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America's suit against Anthony Brenneke and related entities to recover under an indemnity agreement tied to a supersedeas bond posted in prior state litigation. Brenneke challenged personal jurisdiction, claiming improper service of the summons and complaint, and also contested the evidence supporting the amount of damages awarded on summary judgment. The district court entered judgment for Travelers in the amount of $211,300 after finding service effective and damages adequately supported, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The appellate court held that service satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) because the process server placed the documents in Brenneke's immediate proximity after he appeared at the door and was verbally notified, and that the uncontroverted affidavit from Travelers' claims manager sufficiently established the unpaid balance. Brenneke's notice of appearance did not preserve a jurisdictional objection, and he offered no evidence to rebut the damages showing.