Kim McLane Wardlaw

The case involved An Na Peng, a legal permanent resident convicted after trial in 1996 of conspiracy to defraud the INS, a crime involving moral turpitude, who faced removal proceedings and sought waivers of inadmissibility or deportation under former INA § 212(c) and § 212(h). The Ninth Circuit held that Peng remained eligible to apply for § 212(c) relief despite IIRIRA’s repeal of that provision, but that the seven-year continuous residence requirement under § 212(h) applied to her and did not violate equal protection by treating legal permanent residents differently from non-residents. The court reasoned that pre-IIRIRA convictions after trial still permit a showing of reasonable reliance on the availability of § 212(c) relief, that the § 212(h) residency rule is not impermissibly retroactive when proceedings began after its effective date, and that Congress had a rational basis for imposing stricter requirements on legal permanent residents given their greater rights and privileges. The petition was therefore granted in part and remanded to allow Peng to pursue the § 212(c) waiver.

immigrationcriminal lawcivil rights

In United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, the defendant appealed his 46-month sentence for illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 after pleading guilty, arguing that his prior California conviction for forcible rape under Penal Code § 261(a)(2) should not trigger a 16-level “crime of violence” enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines and that the district court erred in calculating the Guidelines range. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the sentence in full. It held that the rape conviction is categorically a crime of violence because it necessarily involves the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person. The court further concluded that the district court committed no procedural error in applying recency points or other Guidelines provisions and that the 46-month sentence, at the low end of the range, was substantively reasonable after consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. The court also rejected the challenge to the statutory enhancement under § 1326(b)(2), adhering to Almendarez-Torres.

immigrationcriminal law

The case involved Valerie Withrow's ERISA lawsuit against her former employer's long-term disability plan, alleging that her monthly benefits had been undercalculated based on her pre-disability earnings. The district court dismissed the action as untimely under the policy's contractual limitations period. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the policy's three-year limitations provision—required by California insurance law—does not apply to disputes over the proper amount of benefits rather than eligibility. The court relied on the defendant's concession that only ERISA's four-year California statute of limitations governs such calculation claims and remanded for further proceedings.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned Hobert Parker Jr.'s misdemeanor convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1382 for protesting on Ocean Avenue, a public road crossing Vandenberg Air Force Base, after receiving a barment letter from the base commander. The Ninth Circuit reversed the convictions on appeal. The court first addressed the sufficiency of the evidence and held that the government failed to prove it had absolute ownership or an exclusive right to possession of the property, as required by circuit precedent, because Ocean Avenue was subject to a public road easement under concurrent county jurisdiction. Although Parker also raised double jeopardy and First Amendment arguments, the reversal rested solely on the lack of evidence establishing an essential element of the offense.

criminal lawfree speechfederal power

CollegeSource, a California company that compiles and sells access to college course catalogs, sued AcademyOne, a Pennsylvania competitor, in federal court in California for misappropriating material from its websites. The district court dismissed the case for lack of personal jurisdiction over AcademyOne. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that AcademyOne was not subject to general jurisdiction in California but was subject to specific jurisdiction because it had purposefully directed commercial activities toward California residents and institutions, including through targeted online advertising, and because the misappropriation claims arose out of those contacts. The court further found that exercising jurisdiction would not be unreasonable under the Burger King fairness factors, such as burden on the defendant and the plaintiff's interest in obtaining relief.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

Mavrix Photo, a Florida-based celebrity photo agency, sued Brand Technologies, an Ohio corporation operating the celebrity-gossip.net website, and its CEO in California federal court for copyright infringement arising from the unauthorized posting of photos taken of celebrities in the Bahamas. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied jurisdictional discovery. The Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that Brand was not subject to general personal jurisdiction in California but was subject to specific personal jurisdiction. The court reasoned that Brand's website was expressly aimed at California through its advertising, business partnerships with California entities, and national audience targeting, and that the resulting economic harm from lost licensing value occurred foreseeably in California, satisfying the Calder effects test for purposeful direction.

procedureproperty

In these consolidated cases, defendants Yepez and Acosta-Montes each committed a federal methamphetamine importation offense while on California state probation and later obtained nunc pro tunc state court orders retroactively terminating their probation as of the day before the federal crime. The Ninth Circuit addressed whether federal district courts, when determining eligibility for safety-valve relief from the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), must credit those state orders when calculating criminal history points. The court held that the federal sentencing courts are required to give effect to the state modifications, reversing the sentence in Yepez and affirming the sentence in Acosta-Montes. Its core reasoning rested on principles of comity, under which federal courts must respect the authority of state courts to modify ongoing probationary terms pursuant to California Penal Code § 1203.3.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

In Thalheimer v. City of San Diego, plaintiffs including candidates, political action committees, and a political party challenged five provisions of San Diego's Municipal Election Campaign Control Ordinance (ECCO) under the First Amendment, seeking a preliminary injunction against enforcement before the 2010 elections. The district court upheld the City's pure contribution limits but enjoined a provision restricting the fundraising and spending of independent political committees, as well as certain timing restrictions on contributions to candidates. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court correctly applied the preliminary injunction standard by balancing the likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm from restrictions on political speech, and the public interest. The court reasoned that, consistent with Buckley v. Valeo, contribution limits impose only marginal burdens on speech while expenditure limits are subject to stricter scrutiny, and this framework remains applicable even after Citizens United v. FEC.

electionsfree speech

The case involved Kathie Costanich's § 1983 claims against Washington DSHS officials alleging deprivation of due process rights to her foster care license and guardianship of dependent children after a social worker's investigation found emotional abuse, leading to license revocation and guardianship termination proceedings. An administrative law judge and state appellate court later reversed the revocation based on inaccuracies in the investigation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the officials, holding that some were entitled to absolute immunity for actions related to license revocation and others to qualified immunity because Costanich failed to show violation of a clearly established constitutional right, despite factual disputes over evidence fabrication. The court also dismissed her procedural due process, malicious prosecution, and First Amendment claims as waived or meritless.

civil rightsfamily lawprocedure

This case is a defamation action brought by attorney Johnnie Cochran against the New York Post and columnist Andrea Peyser over a statement in a column claiming that Cochran would 'say or do just about anything to win, typically at the expense of the truth,' referring to his defense of O.J. Simpson. The court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and to transfer venue but granted their motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court reasoned that the challenged statement, read in the context of extensive public debate over the Simpson trial and Cochran's role in it, could not reasonably be understood as asserting an objective fact and instead constituted protected opinion under the First Amendment.

free speechtorts & liability

This case involved a nonprofit organization seeking to prevent the National Park Service from removing twelve horses from Santa Cruz Island in the Channel Islands. The plaintiffs argued that the NPS violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act by deciding to remove the horses without adequately considering the environmental impacts or preparing an Environmental Impact Statement. The court granted the federal defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding based on the administrative record that the NPS's decision was not arbitrary and capricious.

environmentfederal power

This case involves competing watch manufacturers where plaintiffs Severin Montres claimed that defendants Yidah Watch Co.'s Series 5000 watch infringed the copyrighted design of plaintiffs' Model 3600 Gucci watch, which features a thick three-dimensional block-letter "G" frame around a rectangular featureless face along with a metal bracelet and clasp. The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction solely on the copyright claim, finding a probability of success on the merits based on a valid copyright registration establishing ownership and evidence of access plus substantial similarity in the designs. It applied the standard for preliminary relief in copyright cases, which presumes irreparable harm once likelihood of success is shown through access and substantial similarity, while declining to address the Lanham Act or state unfair competition claims.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerns Guess ?, Inc.'s claims against the operators of Tres Hermanos stores for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, dilution, and unfair competition under federal and California law. Guess alleged that the defendants' use of an inverted red-edged white triangle containing the word "Wield" on the rear pocket of jeans sold in their stores infringed its federally registered logos featuring a similar triangle with "Guess?" or a question mark inside. The court granted Guess's motion for a preliminary injunction after analyzing the eight Sleekcraft factors and concluding there was a likelihood of consumer confusion, which in turn created a presumption of irreparable harm to the plaintiff. The decision rested on the strength of Guess's mark, the proximity and similarity of the goods and marks, and the lack of sufficient evidence from defendants to rebut the showing of probable success on the merits.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a property owner, Carson Harbor Village, Ltd., seeking reimbursement from prior owners, tenants including Unocal, and governmental entities for costs of removing tar-like and slag hazardous materials from a mobile home park property in Carson, California. The plaintiff asserted claims under CERCLA, RCRA, the Clean Water Act, and state law claims including nuisance and trespass. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the federal claims and most state claims, finding no admissible evidence that the cleanup costs were necessary under CERCLA, that an imminent endangerment to health or the environment existed under RCRA, or that any NPDES permit violation occurred under the CWA. The court allowed certain state law claims against Unocal to proceed and ordered briefing on jurisdiction over the remainder.

environmentpropertyproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute between the heirs of movie producer David O. Selznick and Turner Entertainment Co., successor to Loew’s, over the distribution rights to the film Gone with the Wind. The court addressed cross-motions for partial summary judgment regarding whether Turner holds exclusive distribution rights or shares them with the plaintiffs. The court determined that the plaintiffs possess a beneficial interest in the Picture's rights stemming from prior ownership agreements and copyright renewal issues, but this interest does not extend to transferring legal title or granting nonexclusive exploitation rights to third parties. The decision was based on the terms of the 1938 Agreement, subsequent ownership transfers, and the implications of copyright renewal under the 1909 Act.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Alltel Information Services seeking additional damages from the FDIC, acting as receiver for an insolvent bank, for the repudiation of two five-year service agreements for data and item processing. The court determined it had jurisdiction under FIRREA but granted summary judgment to the FDIC, holding that the agency had properly repudiated the contracts and that Alltel was entitled only to the partial allowance already provided, which covered actual direct compensatory damages but excluded lost profits or future minimum payments. The reasoning centered on the statutory limits in FIRREA restricting damages to actual direct compensatory amounts determined as of the receivership date, without allowing recovery for speculative or unperformed contract benefits, consistent with the Act's goals of maximizing asset returns from failed institutions.

business & regulatoryfederal power

The case concerned whether the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation could be sued in the United States for copyright infringement based on news broadcasts that originated in Canada but were received by viewers in border areas of the United States. Los Angeles News Service alleged that CBC aired its copyrighted footage of the 1992 Los Angeles riots without permission. CBC moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that its transmissions did not violate U.S. copyright law and that it was protected by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the public performance right under U.S. copyright law could be infringed when the signal was received in the United States, but granted the motion to sever the claims against CBC from the rest of the action.

propertyprocedure

In Sullivan v. Allstate Insurance, homeowners sued their insurer for failing to pay benefits for damages from the 1994 Northridge earthquake under their homeowners policy, asserting claims including breach of contract and bad faith. The court granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims. The ruling was based on the policy's one-year limitations provision requiring any suit to be filed within one year of the loss, which began running on the date of the earthquake when plaintiffs were aware of the damage, making the 1996 lawsuit untimely.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case arose from a 1992 police raid and seizure of property belonging to Gospel Missions of America, a religious nonprofit, and its members, conducted under a warrant based on suspected violations of Los Angeles City and County ordinances regulating charitable solicitations. Plaintiffs sued, claiming the ordinances were unconstitutional on their face and as applied, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, holding that specific provisions of both the City and County ordinances were facially invalid because they imposed prior restraints on protected speech, granted excessive discretion to officials, and created impermissible exemptions or burdens on religious solicitations. The decision balanced the governments' interests in preventing fraud against the fundamental free speech rights implicated by charitable fundraising, while upholding other non-defective sections of the ordinances.

free speechreligious libertycivil rights

This case concerned a law firm's FOIA request to the DEA for documents about a witness's misconduct as a paid informant, sought to support habeas proceedings in an underlying murder conviction. After the DEA initially denied the request citing exemptions and lack of consent, the firm filed suit, leading to partial disclosure of redacted documents. The court granted the plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees, finding that they substantially prevailed in the action and met the standards for eligibility and entitlement to a reasonable award.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure