9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Opinions Filed in January 2015

Volpicelli v. United States

The nine-month limitations period pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6532(c) is not jurisdictional and may be equitably tolled.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Mays-Williams v. Williams

Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a plan participant must substantially comply with governing plan documents when requesting a change in beneficiary designation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

In re Sussex

An arbitrator’s professional relationships must create a reasonable impression of partiality in order to rise to a claim of bias sufficient to require a remedy.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

United States v. Davis

Under the 2010 retroactive amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, a district court lacks jurisdiction to modify a sentence based upon a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement where the agreement does not: (1) require sentencing within a Guidelines range; (2) make clear that a Guidelines range served as the basis for the specified term; and, (3) show that “a sentencing range is evident from the agreement itself.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Black Mesa Water Coalition v. Jewell

An agency’s “eligibility” determination in reference to fees and costs is reviewed de novo, and review of an “entitlement” determination is reviewed for substantial evidence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

Cortez v. Skol

Granting summary judgment is improper when there is sufficient evidence that a prison official is aware of the risk involved in a particular transport and acts with deliberate indifference to the prisoner’s safety.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

In re Hokulani Square, Inc.

A trustee cannot include the amount of a credit bid in the calculation of total compensation under 11 U.S.C. §§ 326(a) and 363(k).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

United States v. McElmurry

The court must read every word of evidence when determining if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

United States v. Whittemore

Under 2 U.S.C. § 441f, the source of conduit contributions is the proper focus of the inquiry regardless of the ownership status of the funds at the time of contribution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Ezell v. United States

In order to establish a prima facie case, the successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition must announce a new rule of constitutional law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

McClellan v. I-Flow Corporation

Because there is no conflict with the Medical Device Amendment of 1976, preemption of state law does not apply to failure-to-warn theory jury instructions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

United States v. Ortiz

Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a) allows the government to offer a tape recording of the defendant’s voice into evidence if it can make a prima facie case that the voice is the defendant’s, which can be established by demonstrating minimal familiarity with the voice.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Shinault v. Hawks

A state must provide an inmate a pre-deprivation hearing before transferring a substantial amount of money from the inmate's trust account.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

United States v. Rice

The Sixth Amendment is satisfied when a defendant who wishes to represent himself pro se is given a fair chance to present his defense in his own way.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

The first sale doctrine bars a copyright infringement claim because copyright distribution and importation rights expire after an authorized sale within a foreign jurisdiction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Redding Rancheria v. Jewell

The “restoration of lands” exception to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act permits one casino on restored tribe’s land if there is a “modern,” “historical,” and “temporal” connection to the land presently in question and the Tribe’s original land.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Indian Law

City of San Jose v. Comm’r of Baseball

Major League Baseball is exempt from the federal antitrust laws.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

United States v. Hertler

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h), "any terms of imprisonment" refers to the imprisonment in connection with the offense of the conviction and does not aggregate all counts of the conviction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Zamudio

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1326, no prejudice arises if the defendant cannot collaterally attack the underlying removal proceeding, and the five-year statute of limitations does not begin to run until the government has knowledge of the defendant’s illegal presence in the United States.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Dibe

Ineffective legal counsel is not to be considered as a sentencing factor in criminal cases.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

United States v. Jimenez-Arzate

United States v. Grajeda remains good law, and Ceron v. Holder does not abrogate United States v. Grajeda.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Neal

A violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1521 is triggered by the filing, attempting to file, or conspiring to file, a false lien or encumbrance, without regard to the validity of the documents at issue.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Rodman

Providing inaccurate information to a federal agency, via an agreement between two or more individuals, is sufficient to constitute a conspiracy to impair the function of that agency, even when no evidence exists to prove an additional injury to the agency.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Ibarra v. Manheim Investments

In order for a class action lawsuit to abide by the Class Action Fairness Act, definitive evidence of the amount in controversy must be submitted to the court for review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

LaCross v. Knight Transportation

A defendant when removing a case to federal court may use assumptions and a reasonable chain of logic to show by a preponderance that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Williams v. Paramo

In order for a defendant who already has three strikes to file in forma pauperis, they will have to allege, either through declaration or affidavit, a “continued existence of imminent danger at the time the notice of appeal is filed.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Davis v. Electronic Arts, Inc.

Denial of a motion to strike under the anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation ("SLAPP") statute in California is proper when the use of former NFL players' likenesses are central to the commercial purpose in production of a video game.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

United States v. Gnirke

Restrictions to non-pornographic sexually explicit material containing adults deprive a greater liberty interest than is reasonably necessary.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Back to Top