9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Opinions Filed in December 2011

United States v. Rodriguez-Ocampo

“An order of removal that provided the alien with no opportunity for judicial review and cannot support a prosecution under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, or a reinstatement of such an order, cannot support a sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b).”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Balderas v. Countrywide Bank

Since a family was able to plead allegations in their complaint that would present a winning case if proven, the district court erred by granting the defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion for dismissal, because such a complaint was not subject to dismissal under 12(b)(6), no matter how unlikely the winning outcome may be perceived by the district court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Estrella v. Ollison

Sentencing errors under Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), are harmless if the reviewing court can ascertain that the sentencing judge was presented with sufficient evidence to conclude that a jury would have found the aggravating factors beyond a reasonable doubt.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Family PAC v. McKenna

Ballot measure disclosure requirements do not violate the first amendment when they are substantially related to important government interests.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Hepting v. AT & T Corp.

Section 802 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides that private parties assisting the government with intelligence gathering shall not be subject to civil liability, is constitutional.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Jewel v. National Security Agency

“Concrete injury” was found--in the context of statutory and constitutional claims of unlawful government surveillance and warrantless eavesdropping--where allegations specified a single telecommunications company and the equipment used at the particular facility were where claimant’s personal communications were intercepted. Also, no heightened standing requirement existed simply because the case involved government officials in the national security context.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

McMurray v. Verizon Communications

For takings claims related to action that has already taken place, plaintiffs must follow the procedure set out in the Tucker Act prior to filing suit for takings.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Northern Plains Resource v. Tongue River RR

By not providing adequate baseline data regarding wildlife and sensitive plants to assess the impacts of a proposed railroad in application documents, violates the National Environmental Policy Act's procedural requirement on federal agencies to "take a 'hard look' at the potential environmental consequences of the proposed action."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Orange County v. California Dept. of Education

The California agency that is responsible for the an eligible minor under the Individuals with Disabilities Act is the school district in which the individuals parents resides, or the California Department of Education if no parent is defined or identified by statute.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

United States v. Shetler

Exculpatory confessions obtained by an illegal search and seizure can not be used as evidence unless the government can prove that the confession was obtained by legal means.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

United States v. Valenzuela-Espinoza

The McNabb-Mallory Rule is an important procedural safeguard and necessary to provide a remedy for violations of Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 5(a). Any delay in presentment to a magistrate must be reasonable and necessary.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

K.D. v. Department of Education, State of Hawaii

For purposes of the “stay put” provision under the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)), a settlement agreement that merely requires tuition reimbursement and fails to call for “placement” lacks “the same legal effect as an affirmative agency decision to define a student’s ‘current educational placement.’”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

Parker v. Small

It does not violate a persons right to a trial by jury when a judge advises a holdout jury to try alternative methods of deliberation in accordance with California's Moore Charge.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Wright v. Incline Village General Improvement

Privately-owned beach property, with access restricted to owners based on boundaries established in 1968, does not violate the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego

Claims brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 are not ripe for review unless the government entity implementing land use regulations has reached a final decision regarding the property at issue.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Drake v. Obama

In order for candidates to have competitive standing (standing based on the "inclusion of a disqualified rival"), they must file a claim for relief before the election is over and the elected official is sworn in.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

UMG Recordings v. Shelter Capital Partners

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act “safe harbor” provision, a website provider is not liable for copyright infringement if the provider is not aware of infringement or removes access to copyrighted material once the provider becomes aware of infringement, and actual knowledge of infringement is required for a provider to be liable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Plaza Auto Center v. NLRB

In evaluating "the nature of the employee's outburst" as a factor of whether an employee has forfeited protection under National Labor Relations Act § 8(a)(1), a Court need not find evidence of physical conduct or threat in order to find this factor weighing against protection. In fact, language alone indicating that the nature of the outburst weighs against protection may be enough to counterbalance the other three factors even when those other factors favor continuing protection.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Romero-Mendoza v. Holder

The 1983 Salvadoran constitutional amendment "eliminating legitimacy distinctions served to legitimate any child born out of wedlock."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Crockett & Myers v. Napier, Fitzgerald & Kirby

Since the district court, on remand from a previous Ninth Circuit decision, failed to follow instructions to recalculate an award given to a party for a client’s referral value, the re-entering by the district court of their previous award was clearly erroneous.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

M.R., et al v. Dreyfus

Recipients of “personal care services” under Washington’s state Medicaid plan made a sufficient showing that a reduction in these services would threaten them with institutionalization in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act in order to grant them a preliminary injunction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

Ministry of Defense of Iran v. Cubic Defense

The United States has a strong public policy toward the confirmation of foreign arbitration awards that outweighs current restrictive trade policies with Iran. Also, prejudgment interest and legal fees are available in an arbitration confirmation award under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution

Alston v. Read

State prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity, as there was no clearly established duty for these officials "to seek out original court records in response to a prisoner's unsupported assertion that he was being over-detained."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Sullivan v. Oracle Corporation

The California Labor Code and California Unfair Competition Law apply to overtime work performed in California by nonresidents.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

Merolillo v. Yates

Under Brecht v. Abrahamson, habeas relief is warranted only if the error has a “substantial and injurious effect” in determining the jury’s verdict and that determination is guided by five non-exclusive factors articulated in Delaware v. Van Arsdall.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Bravo v. City of Santa Maria

An officer's omission that a person of interest was incarcerated is sufficient to raise the issue of judicial deception in relation to a 1983 claim challenging the validity of a search warrant authorizing a search of the person of interest's home.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Johnson v. Board of Trustees of the Boundary County School District 101

Where an expired teaching certificate fails to satisfy a job prerequisite the holder is not a “qualified individual with a disability” for the purposes of reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

Johnson v. Finn

Due Process Clause requires the district court to hold a separate evidentiary hearing when rejecting a magistrate judge's ruling that the prosecution had racial motivation for excluding jurors.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Pagayon v. Holder

A pleading stage admission of an allegation supporting removal in an immigration removal proceeding, can be relied on by the IJ for determining removal, but removal is not supported if the admission is made in an evidentiary stage of the proceeding; a court could not sustain removal if there is insufficient proof of a conviction or allegation in the documentary evidence coupled with an evidentiary stage admission.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

United States v. Tapia

A sentencing court errs when considering a drug treatment program in determination of the length of a sentence for transporting undocumented illegal aliens without presentation and for financial gain.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Gonzalez v. Wong

When considering new evidence in the habeas corpus claim of a state prisoner under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a district court may stay proceedings to allow the defendant to present that evidence to the state court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Kwong v. Holder

A state court’s abstract of judgment is sufficient to establish the crime for which a defendant was convicted for purposes of finding a lawful permanent resident removable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Red Lion Hotels Franchising Inc. v. MAK, LLC

The “Bill of Rights” contained in Washington’s Franchise Investment Protection Act is applicable as to a franchisor in Washington State and a Franchisee outside Washington State.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

United States v. Grant

Rehabilitation is not an appropriate consideration for determining the length of imprisonment upon revocation of supervised release.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Andrich v. United States

Writs of mandamus brought to enforce the Crime Victims Rights Acts are reviewed for a district court's clear error and abuse of discretion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Strategic Diversity v. Alchemix Corp.

A party wishing to rescind a contract, and claim negligent misrepresentation and fraud, must show economic damages.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Citizens for Balanced Use v. McAllister

Since the Study Act requires the Forest Service to maintain areas designated as “study areas” in their 1977 wilderness character, the Service’s travel plan, which ignored the impact of increased volume from the use of motorized and mechanical vehicles on the current users’ ability to have solitude in an area designated as a “study area” under the Study Act, such a decision was arbitrary and capricious.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Flynn v. Holder

Compensation for “hematopoietic stems cells” is not a violation of the National Organ Transplant Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Back to Top