Sidney Runyan Thomas

The case concerns appeals filed by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives from a district court ruling in favor of plaintiff Karen Golinski in a dispute over federal employee benefits. The Ninth Circuit addressed a petition for initial hearing of the consolidated appeals by the full court en banc. After the petition was circulated to the active judges pursuant to General Order 5.2, no judge requested a vote within the required time. The court therefore denied the petition for en banc review. The prior April 11, 2012 order remains in effect, and the appeals were ordered calendared for argument before a three-judge panel in September 2012.

civil rightsfamily lawfederal powerprocedure

Vanessa Simmonds filed multiple Section 16(b) lawsuits against investment banks and underwriters, alleging they engaged in short-swing trading profits in connection with various IPOs and seeking disgorgement on behalf of the issuer corporations. On remand from the Supreme Court’s decision in Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Simmonds, 132 S. Ct. 1414 (2012), the Ninth Circuit addressed two groups of cases. For the “Non-Moving Issuer” cases, it remanded them to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion. For the “Moving Issuer” cases, it ordered dismissal with prejudice because Simmonds had not satisfied Delaware’s requirement that a shareholder make a pre-suit demand on the corporation’s board before bringing a derivative action. The order thus distinguished the cases based on whether the issuers had moved to dismiss on demand grounds and applied that procedural rule to bar the latter set of claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned whether John Williams could be convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(d)(1)(A) for advertising the distribution of child pornography when he had not personally produced the images. Williams, who used peer-to-peer software to share thousands of explicit images of minors and was found with related materials during a search, moved to dismiss the advertising charge on the ground that the statute requires the advertiser to have produced the material. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion and upheld his conditional guilty plea. The court held that the statute’s plain language contains no personal-production requirement, as confirmed by its structure, the use of disjunctive subsections, and legislative history aimed at prohibiting advertisements for child pornography regardless of who created the images.

criminal law

The case involved parens patriae antitrust lawsuits filed in state courts by the Attorneys General of Washington and California (along with various local governments and school districts) against manufacturers of thin-film transistor liquid crystal display panels. The complaints alleged an international price-fixing conspiracy from 1998 to 2006 that violated state laws and injured state agencies and consumers through higher prices for products containing the panels; the states sought declaratory relief, civil penalties, restitution, and damages on behalf of residents. The defendants removed the actions to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, arguing that the suits were disguised class actions because consumers were the real parties in interest for the monetary claims. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's remand orders, holding that the suits were not class actions within the meaning of CAFA. Under the plain text of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), parens patriae actions brought by state attorneys general do not satisfy the central requirements of class actions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves multiple class-action lawsuits by homeowners against major homebuilders and affiliated mortgage companies, alleging that defendants' lending and sales practices caused plaintiffs' homes to lose economic value and desirability, supporting claims for overpayment and rescission. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the overpayment and rescission claims for lack of Article III standing and that the alleged injuries to home value and desirability were legally cognizable. However, the court agreed that plaintiffs had not yet shown a sufficient causal link between defendants' specific actions and the claimed harms, as opposed to broader market conditions. It reasoned that standing requires a concrete injury fairly traceable to the defendants, and expert evidence could potentially establish that connection. The court therefore reversed the dismissals and remanded to allow plaintiffs to amend their complaints with such evidence.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

In Reina-Rodriguez v. United States, Hector Reina-Rodriguez appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging a 16-level sentencing enhancement for his federal illegal re-entry conviction, which had been based on a prior Utah conviction for burglary of a dwelling treated as a “crime of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court, holding that its decision in United States v. Grisel applies retroactively as a non-constitutional substantive ruling and that the Utah conviction does not categorically qualify as burglary of a dwelling. The court reasoned that Utah’s broader statutory definition of “dwelling” does not match the generic federal definition, that the district court erred by relying on public property records outside the record of conviction, and that only limited Shepard-approved documents could be considered under the modified categorical approach. The case was remanded for resentencing on an open record.

immigrationcriminal lawprocedure

The case involved Kerry Walls, a former bus driver for the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority, who was terminated for violating a Last Chance Agreement after reinstatement following an initial firing. Walls sued, alleging that his second termination interfered with his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and violated his due process rights under the U.S. and California Constitutions by denying him a pre-termination hearing. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the employer on the FMLA claim, reasoning that Walls was not an eligible employee at the time he requested leave because he had not yet been reinstated. However, the court reversed on the due process claims, holding that the Last Chance Agreement did not constitute a knowing waiver of Walls's right to a pre-termination hearing, thus entitling him to judgment on those claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved Mabelle de la Rosa Dann, who was charged with conspiracy to commit visa fraud, visa fraud, forced labor, document servitude, and harboring an illegal alien for financial gain after arranging for her live-in nanny from Peru to enter the U.S. on a fraudulent visa, then withholding her passport, preventing her from leaving or communicating with others, and failing to pay her wages for years. A jury convicted Dann on all counts, leading to a 60-month sentence and a restitution order requiring her to pay the victim over $123,000, including by assigning her accrued child support payments directly to the victim. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions as supported by sufficient evidence and upheld two sentencing enhancements related to the duration of forced labor and its connection to other felonies, while declining to review a third enhancement that did not affect the guidelines range. The court reversed the restitution order's assignment of child support arrearages, reasoning that under California law such payments belong to the minor children as the real parties in interest, with the parent acting only as a conduit until the children reach majority.

immigrationcriminal lawlabor & employmentfamily law

The case involved Hoshiyar Singh's petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of his motion to reopen his removal proceedings based on claims of ineffective assistance by his prior counsel. Singh had married a U.S. citizen and sought to adjust his status but had been ordered to voluntarily depart after his asylum appeal was denied. The court held that the BIA abused its discretion in finding no ineffective assistance and no prejudice, because counsel failed to properly notify Singh of the voluntary departure order or file appropriate motions, and Singh's failure to depart may not have been voluntary under applicable standards. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings to assess eligibility for relief.

immigrationprocedure

This case involved Del Webb Communities, a developer, suing the owners and operators of M.C. Mojave Construction, a company that performed home inspections for construction defects in a Nevada retirement community and encouraged homeowners to pursue claims against Del Webb under Nevada's Chapter 40 statute. Mojave's advertisements made claims about being licensed for structural inspections, acting as representatives of the builder, and offering free services, while their contracts assigned inspection fees to be paid by the builder upon successful claims. The district court issued a permanent injunction barring these practices and relied in part on Nevada common law of champerty to support relief. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction's specific prohibitions on unlicensed and false representations about licensing and authority but vacated its vague general ban on 'illegal, unlicensed and false practices' as unenforceable and rejected the champerty theory as an unrecognized tort under Nevada law.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In this long-running desegregation case filed in 1974 by African American and Mexican American students against the Tucson Unified School District, the parties settled in 1978 under a court-enforced decree requiring elimination of vestiges of past discrimination. After decades of oversight, the district court found that the district had not acted in good faith compliance with its obligations but nevertheless declared the school system unitary and ended federal court jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Supreme Court precedent under cases like Freeman v. Pitts and Missouri v. Jenkins requires continued supervision when good-faith compliance has not been shown and practicable elimination of discriminatory vestiges remains incomplete. The court remanded for further proceedings, including possible partial withdrawal of supervision in compliant areas. The opinion centers on the proper application of the unitary-status test to faculty/staff assignments and overall compliance.

civil rights

The case involved Nune Antonyan, an Armenian national who petitioned for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after facing threats, beatings, and government inaction following her reports of a local drug dealer's activities and his bribery of police and prosecutors. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied relief, but the Ninth Circuit granted the petition in part. The court held that the whistleblowing doctrine applies where an asylum seeker exposes corruption by a criminal protected by government officials, establishing persecution on account of political opinion. The record compelled the conclusion that Antonyan's complaints motivated the retaliation she and her family suffered. The court denied remand on the CAT claim, finding the BIA had adequately addressed it.

immigrationcriminal lawcivil rights

This case is the second appeal from a failed federal prosecution of Daniel Chapman, Sean Flanagan, and Herbert Jacobi for securities and investment fraud. The district court had previously dismissed the indictment with prejudice as a sanction for the government's flagrant Brady and Giglio disclosure violations during trial, but denied the defendants attorneys' fees and costs under the Hyde Amendment. After obtaining an internal government memorandum post-appeal, the defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) to reopen the fee issue, arguing it showed fraud on the court or that they were prevailing parties. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the motion, holding that the memorandum did not demonstrate fraud on the court or alter the conclusion that the dismissal was a discovery sanction rather than a merits ruling relevant to the defendants' guilt or innocence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Hector Reina-Rodriguez's challenge to a 16-level federal sentencing enhancement for illegal re-entry after deportation, which was based on his prior Utah conviction for second-degree burglary of a dwelling. The Ninth Circuit considered whether its en banc decision in United States v. Grisel, narrowing the Guidelines' definition of burglary of a dwelling, applied retroactively. The court held that Grisel applies retroactively as a non-constitutional substantive ruling, that the Utah conviction does not categorically qualify as a crime of violence, and that the record was insufficient to support the enhancement under the modified categorical approach. It therefore reversed the district court's denial of the § 2255 motion and remanded for resentencing. The decision relied on Taylor v. United States categorical analysis and limits on judicial notice of facts outside the record of conviction.

criminal lawimmigrationprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Countrywide Home Loans and Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation over an insurance policy covering mortgage loans, where MGIC had denied claims based on alleged fraud. Countrywide filed for declaratory judgment in state court, which MGIC removed to federal court, and then MGIC moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. The district court remanded the case to state court using its discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act without first addressing the arbitration motion. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the district court was required to consider the FAA motion before exercising its discretionary remand authority because the FAA provides an independent basis for federal jurisdiction and mandates consideration of such motions.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a school district suing state education agencies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to enjoin the granting of continuances exceeding 45 days in due process hearings concerning a child's individualized education program. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court held that the school district lacked both express and implied statutory standing because the IDEA's procedural safeguards and right of action are designed to benefit disabled children and their parents, not to allow local educational agencies to enforce compliance with timelines or other procedural rules. The decision followed precedents from other circuits concluding that school districts may sue under the IDEA only to address issues raised in parents' complaints about a specific child's education.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved the IRS's effort to enforce a summons against appraiser Mark Richey for production of his work file on a conservation easement valuation that the Pesky taxpayers used to claim a charitable deduction on their 2002-2004 federal income tax returns. The district court quashed the summons, ruling that it was not issued in good faith and that the entire file was protected by attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the summons met the good-faith requirements for enforcement and that the work file was not shielded by the work-product doctrine because it was prepared to support the tax return filing rather than in anticipation of litigation. The court remanded for an in-camera review to determine whether any specific materials qualified for attorney-client protection.

taxesprocedure

The case involved a challenge by The Lands Council to the U.S. Forest Service's Mission Brush Project, which included thinning 277 acres of old-growth forest in the Idaho Panhandle National Forest by removing younger trees to reduce fire risk and improve forest health. The plaintiffs argued that the project violated the National Forest Management Act, the forest plan, and the National Environmental Policy Act due to inadequate analysis of impacts on wildlife and old-growth forests. The district court granted summary judgment to the Forest Service, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the Forest Service's environmental impact statement used reliable data and methodologies, including habitat-based analyses for species like flammulated owls and northern goshawks, to support its conclusions about maintaining viable populations.

environment

The case concerned a challenge by the National Association of Home Builders to Rule 9510, adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District to reduce emissions of NOx and particulate matter from certain development projects in an area failing to meet federal air quality standards. The rule requires developers to assess and mitigate emissions from construction and other site activities as a condition of project approval. The district court held that the rule was not preempted by the Clean Air Act, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that the rule permissibly targets indirect sources of pollution associated with development, consistent with the Act's allocation of authority to states and localities, rather than imposing prohibited standards directly on mobile sources like construction equipment.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

In this case, family members of U.S. servicemen killed in the 1983 Beirut bombing obtained a multi-billion dollar default judgment against Iran in federal court for its role in supporting the attack, then registered the judgment in California and sought an order assigning to them Iran's rights to payments from the French shipping company CMA CGM for port and fuel services. The district court raised foreign sovereign immunity on its own initiative despite Iran's absence and denied the assignment motion. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act immunizes a foreign state's property from execution and that courts may address the immunity defense sua sponte even when the foreign state does not appear. The core reasoning was that the FSIA places the burden on the foreign sovereign to establish immunity but does not require the sovereign itself to invoke the defense before a court may apply it to protect immune assets.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power