Atsushi Wallace Tashima

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 After the city council repealed Chapter 38 via ordinance, halting ongoing condemnation processes, the lessees sued the city, alleging that the repeal impaired their contractual rights in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.

propertycivil rights

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.

immigrationcriminal lawfamily law

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.

free speechcivil rightsfederal powerprocedure

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.

labor & employmentprocedure

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.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedure

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a lawsuit by the State of Oregon against the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), challenging LSC regulations that require recipients of federal legal aid funding to maintain legal, physical, and financial separation from organizations engaging in restricted activities such as lobbying or class actions. Oregon alleged that these rules, known as the program integrity regulation, interfered with the state's ability to integrate and regulate legal services providers, thereby violating the Tenth Amendment. The district court dismissed the claims on the merits, but the Ninth Circuit held that Oregon lacked standing to bring the suit. The court reasoned that Oregon was not directly regulated by LSC, faced only indirect effects that it could mitigate by increasing its own funding, and had not demonstrated a distinct interest separate from that of its citizens or LSC recipients. Accordingly, the appellate court vacated the merits dismissal and remanded for dismissal due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

federal powerprocedure

In Latu v. Mukasey, a Tongan citizen petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision finding him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) based on a 2003 Hawaii conviction for violating Haw. Rev. Stat. § 291C-12.5, which requires a driver in an accident causing substantial injury to stop, provide identifying information, and render reasonable assistance. The Ninth Circuit applied the categorical approach to determine whether the conviction was a crime involving moral turpitude and held that the statute does not categorically involve base, vile, or depraved conduct or fraud, following its prior decision in Cerezo v. Mukasey involving a nearly identical California statute. The court therefore granted the petition and vacated the removal order, concluding that the government had not met its burden to prove removability by clear and convincing evidence.

immigrationcriminal law

The case concerned whether American Bird Conservancy could sue the FCC in federal district court under the citizen-suit provision of the Endangered Species Act to challenge the agency's issuance of construction permits and registrations for seven communications towers in Hawaii. The group alleged that the FCC had failed to consult with the Secretary of the Interior about potential harm to endangered seabirds before approving the applications, which the applicants had certified would have no significant environmental impact. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the Hobbs Act and Communications Act vest exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to final FCC orders in the courts of appeals, and the ESA citizen-suit provision does not create an alternative avenue for review of such discrete agency actions. The court reasoned that the tower registrations constituted final orders reviewable only under the 60-day Hobbs Act process, and that allowing ESA suits would undermine the statutory scheme for judicial review of FCC decisions.

environmentfederal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned Joseph Drake's conviction on federal charges of Hobbs Act robbery and related firearm offenses arising from a 2003 Guam convenience store robbery. Drake argued that the nearly two-year delay between his initial indictment in Guam Superior Court and his later federal indictment violated his Sixth Amendment speedy trial right, and that lost surveillance footage violated due process. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction, holding that the speedy trial clock began with the federal indictment, that Drake was responsible for much of the delay through waivers and motions, and that he failed to show prejudice. The court also rejected the due process claim because the lost recording was not clearly exculpatory and comparable evidence remained available.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Thomas Cox and his former employer, Ocean View Hotel Corporation, concerning a dispute arising from Cox's employment as Director of Finance under an agreement that included a mandatory arbitration clause governed by California law. After Cox sent a letter requesting arbitration over alleged sex discrimination and related claims, Ocean View initially responded that the matter was not ripe for arbitration; Cox then filed suit in state court, prompting Ocean View to remove the case and move to compel arbitration. The district court denied the motion and granted partial summary judgment to Cox on the grounds that Ocean View had breached the agreement and waived arbitration rights. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Cox had not properly initiated arbitration under the agreement's terms and that the record did not support a finding of waiver by Ocean View.

labor & employmentprocedure

Pablo Mendez-Mendez, a lawful permanent resident from Mexico convicted of bribery of a public official, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision upholding an Immigration Judge's order of removal based on inadmissibility for a crime involving moral turpitude. The court addressed whether Mendez qualified for the petty offense exception under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II), the denial of his motions for continuance and substitution of counsel, and claims of due process violations. The Ninth Circuit denied the petition, concluding that the statutory maximum penalty of fifteen years for the bribery offense, rather than the sentencing guidelines range, made the exception inapplicable. The court further held that Mendez received a full and fair hearing and had not exhausted his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

The case involved a lawsuit by the estate of Richard Gregory against Maui County police officers and the county under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment during an attempt to restrain Gregory after he became aggressive in a music studio, refused to leave, and held a pen toward officers. Gregory, who was under the influence of marijuana and had severe heart disease, died of a heart attack during the struggle, though medical evidence indicated he was breathing and not choked. The district court granted summary judgment to the officers, finding the force reasonable and proportionate given Gregory's trespassing, aggression, and refusal to drop the pen, with no weapons or strikes used by officers. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the officers' actions were objectively reasonable under Graham v. Connor based on the circumstances, including the lack of evidence that the restraint caused the death or constituted a choke hold.

criminal lawcivil rights

The case concerned Lei Shi, a Chinese national and cook on a Taiwanese-owned fishing vessel registered in the Seychelles, who killed the captain and first mate in international waters off Hawaii, seized control of the ship for two days, and was later intercepted and arrested by the US Coast Guard and FBI near Hawaii. Shi was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2280 with acts of violence endangering maritime navigation, a statute implementing the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation. The Ninth Circuit addressed challenges to US jurisdiction over the foreign-on-foreign incident, the admissibility of Shi's statements (including an assumed Miranda issue with pre-arrest questioning by a Coast Guard officer and the validity of his later confession), and the validity of a search warrant for incriminating letters. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, concluding that the statute authorized jurisdiction regardless of the vessel's or offender's nationality, that any initial Miranda violation did not taint the subsequent properly warned confession, and that the warrant was supported by probable cause or good-faith reliance.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

This case involves a challenge by B.V. to a hearing officer's decision in a dispute with the Hawaii Department of Education over educational services or placement. The district court denied the plaintiff's motion to reverse that decision, finding no basis to overturn it. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in full, adopting its analysis and concluding that any alleged procedural violations did not affect the plaintiff's rights.

civil rightsprocedure

The case concerned Honolulu lessees who contracted with the City under Chapter 38 to pay a fee in exchange for the City's promise to use eminent domain to acquire their condominium land and convey fee-simple interests. After the lessees met all procedural requirements but before the City Council approved condemnation, the Council repealed Chapter 38, halting the process. The lessees sued, alleging that the repeal impaired their contracts in violation of the Contracts Clause. The court held that the contracts were not facially void as improper delegations of eminent domain power and that the repeal was subject to Contracts Clause scrutiny under the framework of U.S. Trust Co. v. New Jersey rather than being exempt from review.

propertybusiness & regulatorycivil rights

The case involved Quentin Tahara appealing a district court award of attorney’s fees under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act after he secured a mandatory 20% late payment award from his former employer for delayed compensation on a work injury claim. Tahara had requested $31,500 for 126 hours of work, including substantial time defending his attorney in a state disciplinary proceeding, but the district court awarded only $6,060 after excluding certain categories of fees. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that LHWCA section 928 permits fees for successful efforts to obtain a late payment award but section 928(c) does not cover work performed outside the district court proceeding, and that the district court acted within its discretion under the lodestar method to exclude duplicative hours.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Cynthia Long suing the City and County of Honolulu and police officer Patrick Sterling after Sterling fatally shot her son Dustan Long during a police standoff following a disturbance at Long's home where he had fired a rifle. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Sterling was entitled to qualified immunity. The court reasoned that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Sterling's decision to shoot was objectively reasonable because he reasonably believed Long was raising his rifle and firing at nearby officers based on the radio call and his observations. The court also rejected claims of municipal liability and various state law claims due to lack of evidence of gross negligence or inadequate training.

civil rights

The case involved Janie Ditto seeking to prevent the discharge in bankruptcy of a malpractice judgment she obtained against John McCurdy for negligent breast augmentation surgery, including failure to obtain informed consent. Ditto argued the debt was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) as arising from willful and malicious injury, and alternatively sought to amend her complaint to object to discharge under § 727. The court held that under the Supreme Court's interpretation in Kawaauhau v. Geiger, debts from negligent or reckless conduct do not qualify for the exception, and the motion to amend was untimely since the discharge had been granted over a year earlier. Accordingly, the district court's affirmance of summary judgment for McCurdy was upheld.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved James Sparkman appealing a Tax Court decision upholding the IRS notice of deficiency for tax years 1996 through 2000. Sparkman challenged the ruling that his business entity Mercury Solar PTO lacked economic substance and should be disregarded for tax purposes, along with evidentiary exclusions, unsubstantiated depreciation and charitable deductions, income calculations, and accuracy-related penalties under I.R.C. § 6662(a). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Tax Court in full, reasoning that the entities were shams created to facilitate improper tax credit pass-throughs, that Sparkman failed to substantiate his claims or provide adequate evidence, and that penalties were properly imposed based on the record.

taxesbusiness & regulatory