Richard R. Clifton

This Ninth Circuit order arises from a class-action lawsuit by farmworkers against Global Horizons and orchard operators (Valley Fruit Orchards and Green Acre Farms) alleging multiple violations of Washington’s Farm Labor Contractor Act (FLCA). The district court had awarded statutory damages for several violations, prompting an appeal that raised unsettled questions about the statute’s damages provisions. Rather than decide the case, the Ninth Circuit certified three questions to the Washington Supreme Court: whether a court that elects to award statutory damages must impose $500 per plaintiff per violation or may choose a lesser amount; whether a mandatory $500 award would violate state public policy or due process; and whether damages may be awarded to persons not shown to have been aggrieved by the specific violation. The court stayed the federal appeal pending the state court’s answers, noting that no Washington appellate decision had interpreted the relevant FLCA language and that authoritative guidance was necessary to resolve the dispute.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved GoPets Ltd., the developer of a virtual pet game, suing Edward Hise, Joseph Hise, and their company Digital Overture under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) and the Lanham Act. The defendants had registered gopets.com in 1999 and later re-registered it, along with other similar domain names, after GoPets Ltd. began using its “GoPets” service mark. The Ninth Circuit held that re-registration of an already-registered domain name by a new registrant does not qualify as “registration” under the ACPA, so the transfer of gopets.com did not violate the statute; however, the court affirmed that the defendants’ initial registration of the additional similar domains was done in bad faith and violated the ACPA. It also affirmed a Lanham Act violation based on the defendants’ use of misleading text on the gopets.com site. The court reversed the relief granted for the gopets.com ACPA claim, affirmed the award of statutory damages for the other domains, and remanded for further consideration of possible Lanham Act relief and attorney’s fees.

business & regulatory

The case involved class action lawsuits claiming that companies violated the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act by purchasing personal driver information from state databases in bulk for potential future use. The plaintiffs argued that obtaining the data without an immediate permitted purpose was unlawful, even though the companies' eventual uses complied with the statute. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district courts' dismissals, holding that the DPPA permits bulk purchases as long as the information is obtained for a permissible use, without requiring immediate or actual use in every instance. The court reasoned that the statute's focus is on the end use of the information rather than the method or timing of acquisition.

criminal law

The case involved Ronald Velasquez, a California prisoner convicted of first-degree murder, who filed a federal habeas corpus petition more than three years after his conviction became final. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the petition as untimely under AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations. The court reasoned that the time between Velasquez's successive state habeas petitions was not tolled because the delays of 92 and 81 days were unreasonable under California law, and there were no extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a class action lawsuit filed in California state court by Bradford Coleman against Estes Express Lines and related companies for alleged violations of California labor laws, including failure to pay overtime and provide meal breaks. The defendants removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), but the plaintiff sought remand under the local controversy exception. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed whether a district court could consider evidence beyond the complaint to determine if the local controversy exception applied, specifically regarding the significance of relief sought from and conduct by a local defendant. The court held that the analysis is limited to the allegations in the complaint and affirmed the district court's decision to remand the case to state court.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved brothers Aaron and Matthew Benay suing Warner Bros. Entertainment and related defendants for copyright infringement under federal law and breach of contract under California law, alleging that the film The Last Samurai copied elements from their copyrighted screenplay after it was pitched to one of the production companies with an implicit understanding of compensation if used. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on both claims. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment on the copyright claim due to insufficient evidence of copying, but reversed on the breach of contract claim, finding triable issues of fact on the existence of an implied-in-fact contract and determining that the statute of limitations had not begun to run because the idea had not been disclosed to a substantial segment of the public. The court remanded the contract claim for further proceedings, including on issues like privity.

property

The case involved PhotoMedex suing competitors Dean Irwin and Ra Medical under the Lanham Act and California false advertising and unfair competition laws over three alleged misrepresentations: that Ra Medical's competing excimer laser had FDA clearance, that it would be available for purchase in summer 2003, and that Irwin was the inventor of PhotoMedex's XTRAC laser. The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants on the FDA clearance claim, reasoning that where the FDA had not found a violation or taken enforcement action, a private plaintiff could not use the Lanham Act to enforce FDCA requirements in this context. The court vacated summary judgment on the other claims, holding that a knowingly false prediction of product availability could be actionable and that depicting Irwin as the inventor could be misleading given evidence of his limited contributions. The case was remanded for further proceedings on those issues.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

The case concerned whether a $123,000 state-court award against debtor Yehuda Sabban, based on California Business and Professions Code § 7031(b) for compensation paid to an unlicensed contractor, could be discharged in Sabban’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Creditor Abdul Ghomeshi argued the award was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) because Sabban had falsely represented that his company was licensed. The Ninth Circuit held that the award was dischargeable. The court reasoned that § 7031(b) imposes liability without regard to fraud or actual harm, distinguishing it from the fraud-based statute (§ 7160) under which a separate penalty award was ruled nondischargeable, and from the facts in Cohen v. de la Cruz.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Candido Marez, a former vendor to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP), who sued DWP under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the agency retaliated against him for publicly criticizing its procurement procedures, in violation of the First Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, but the appellate court vacated that decision. The court reasoned that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether DWP took adverse actions against Marez—such as harassment, withholding bid information, and procurement reforms that reduced his revenue—and whether those actions were motivated by his protected speech, precluding summary judgment.

free speechbusiness & regulatorycivil rights

The case involved Juan Rolando Hernandez-Aguilar, a Mexican citizen, petitioning for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming his removal from the United States. The BIA and Immigration Judge found him removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) based on his prior conviction under California Health and Safety Code § 11379(a) for transporting methamphetamine. The Ninth Circuit denied the petition, holding that the conviction categorically qualifies as a removable offense relating to a controlled substance. The court reasoned that, following its precedent in Mielewczyk, a conviction under the California statute qualifies for removal irrespective of whether it involved solicitation, provided the substance is confirmed as a federally controlled substance via the modified categorical approach, which was satisfied here by the methamphetamine involved.

immigrationcriminal law

The case concerned Windell Javillonar Retuta's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming an immigration judge's removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), based on a prior California conviction for possession of methamphetamine. The court addressed whether a minute order containing unexplained acronyms sufficiently established the fact of conviction and whether a judgment that withheld adjudication of guilt, imposed a small stayed fine, and granted deferred entry of judgment qualified as a 'conviction' under the definition in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A). The court held that the minute order was adequate proof of the guilty plea but that the stayed fine did not constitute 'some form of punishment, penalty, or restraint on the alien's liberty' within the meaning of the statute, because the statutory text expressly includes suspended sentences of incarceration yet is silent on non-incarceratory sanctions and the fine imposed no actual restraint. Accordingly, the court concluded that Retuta had not been convicted of a controlled-substance offense for immigration purposes and granted the petition.

immigrationcriminal law

In United States v. Berger, the defendant, former CEO of Craig Consumer Electronics, was convicted of multiple counts of bank and securities fraud after falsifying financial certifications to lenders and making misrepresentations in SEC filings during an IPO, leading to millions in bank losses and a later stock collapse following an earnings restatement. On remand for resentencing after a prior appeal, the district court applied a thirteen-level enhancement based on a $3.14 million loss figure, using a modified market capitalization method to estimate shareholder harm by comparing stock drops in other companies. The Ninth Circuit held that the civil loss causation principles from Dura Pharmaceuticals do not apply in criminal securities fraud cases and that the preponderance of the evidence standard was appropriate for loss findings, but concluded that the district court's specific loss calculation approach was flawed because it failed to properly link the fraud to the claimed shareholder losses. The court therefore vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatory

This case involved Robert Montour's challenge to Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company's termination of his long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed employee plan, where Hartford acted as both insurer and administrator with discretionary authority. The district court granted summary judgment to Hartford, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Hartford abused its discretion. The court reasoned that a conflict of interest requires a more searching application of the abuse of discretion standard, under which a modicum of supporting evidence does not suffice; instead, the conflict must be weighed along with procedural factors such as Hartford's failure to explain its disagreement with the claimant's Social Security disability award and its selective consideration of medical evidence. The panel remanded for entry of judgment reinstating the benefits.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves Laurence Libberton's federal habeas corpus petition after his Arizona convictions for first-degree murder, robbery, theft, and kidnapping in the death of Juan Maya, for which he received a death sentence. The Ninth Circuit first determined that AEDPA governed the petition, then affirmed the district court's denial of relief on claims that prosecutors failed to disclose a deal with witness Martin Norton, failed to correct Norton's false testimony about the deal, and applied an unconstitutional sentencing factor. The court reversed the denial of relief on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing, concluding that counsel's failure to investigate and present mitigating evidence—including details of Libberton's abusive childhood and evidence of co-defendant Steven James's greater role—created a reasonable probability of a different sentence. The result leaves the guilt-phase convictions intact but requires resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Robert Montour's challenge to Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company's termination of his long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-governed employee welfare plan, where Hartford served as both insurer and administrator. The district court granted summary judgment to Hartford, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Hartford abused its discretion in terminating the benefits. The court explained that when an administrator has a conflict of interest, the abuse of discretion standard requires weighing that conflict along with other factors, such as the medical evidence, surveillance footage, the claimant's statements, and the Social Security Administration's contrary disability determination; a mere modicum of supporting evidence is insufficient. The decision emphasized that Hartford's conflict improperly influenced its termination of benefits, particularly given inconsistencies in how it treated the SSA award and procedural issues in its review process. The case was remanded for reinstatement of benefits.

labor & employmenthealthcare

Paul Gossett, a military veteran found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity and committed to Napa State Hospital, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the hospital's trust officer. He alleged that the officer's use of Gossett's VA benefits to partially reimburse the hospital for his care violated the exemption from creditors' claims in 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a)(1) and related regulations. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant. The court reasoned that the statute, read together with regulations such as 38 C.F.R. § 13.71, authorizes institutional awards of VA benefits to cover maintenance costs for incompetent veterans in state facilities, consistent with precedent allowing similar use of Social Security benefits.

civil rightsfederal powerhealthcare

In United States v. Berger, Cornelia Berger, the former wife of a man convicted of securities fraud, challenged the district court's order directing that proceeds from the sale of community property be used to satisfy her ex-husband's restitution obligations to fraud victims under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the entire amount of the proceeds, including Cornelia's one-half community property interest, was available to pay the restitution judgment. The court reasoned that MVRA restitution judgments create a lien on all property of the convicted person, including community property under California law, and distinguished this from criminal forfeiture cases where an innocent spouse's interest might be protected. It further noted that community property is generally liable for debts incurred by one spouse, even if the other spouse was not involved in the wrongdoing.

criminal lawfamily lawproperty

This case concerned the Arizona Corporation Commission's arbitration of an interconnection agreement between Qwest, an incumbent local telephone carrier, and Covad, a competitive entrant, under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The ACC's order required Qwest to include certain network access and pricing terms drawn from Section 271 of the Act, as well as to unbundle network elements that the FCC had already determined need not be offered separately. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment for Qwest, holding that the ACC lacked authority to impose those obligations. The court reasoned that the Act reserves exclusive power over Section 271 compliance and long-distance entry to the FCC, while state commissions' arbitration role under Sections 251 and 252 is limited and cannot override FCC determinations on unbundling.

business & regulatoryfederal power

In Catz v. Chalker, plaintiffs appealed a district court order granting attorneys’ fees to defendants, but the appeal’s timeliness depended on whether a post-judgment motion to correct misspelled names in the caption tolled the 30-day appeal period. The court held that it had jurisdiction because a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) to correct a clerical mistake, when filed within ten days of judgment, qualifies as a tolling motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Although the motion had been labeled under Rule 59, the court construed it as a Rule 60(a) request. The core reasoning was that the appellate rule’s reference to motions “under Rule 60” encompasses both subsections (a) and (b), supported by the rule’s plain language and the policy of preserving appellate access rather than creating jurisdictional traps for litigants.

procedure

This case was an appeal filed by plaintiff Robinette Amaker against King County and other defendants in the Ninth Circuit. The court considered a stipulated motion to withdraw certification and dismiss the appeal. The Ninth Circuit granted the motion, resulting in dismissal of the appeal. The order served on the district court acts as the mandate of the appellate court.

procedure