Alberto Castro

9th Circuit Court of Appeals (22 summaries)

Bradford v. Scherschligt

To determine the proper date of accrual for a claim, the court must identify the common law analogues to the claim and apply any distinctive accrual rules associated with it.

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

Kaass Law v. Wells Fargo Bank

The plain language in 28 U.S.C. § 1927 does not authorize sanctions against a law firm.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Lenz v. Universal Music

Prior to sending a takedown notification, a copyright holder must consider whether the material qualifies as fair use copyright exception; failure to do so creates a triable issue as to whether the copyright holder formed a subjective “good faith” belief that the use was not authorize by law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Wabakken v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab.

Under issue preclusion, and pursuant to the California Whistleblower Protection Act, a State Personnel Board’s decision does not give preclusive effects to a claimant seeking relief to a retaliation claim in court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Acosta-Olivarria v. Lynch

To determine whether Briones applies retroactively to an applicant for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i), the Montgomery Ward five-factor balancing test must be applied on a case-by-case basis

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

In re: Musical Instruments

Horizontal agreements between competitors are generally violations of the Sherman Act per se, whereas vertical agreements, such as those between a manufacturer and retailer, are analyzed under the rule of reason, which considers the facts, history, and reasons for the agreement to determine its effect on the market.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Bldg. Indus. Ass’n V. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce

Under 4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, after the agency considers economic impact, the entire exclusionary process is discretionary and there is no particular methodology that the agency must follow.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Wildlife Law

U.S. Ex Rel. Hartpence v. Kinetic Concepts

Under the False Claim act, there are only two requirements for a claimant to be considered an “original source”: (1) must have direct and independent knowledge of the information on which their claims are based and (2) that they voluntarily provided that info to the Government before filing suit; playing a role in public disclosure is not required.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Pistor v. Garcia

Tribal Defendants are not entitled to sovereign immunity when they are sued in their individual capacity, rather than their official capacities, regardless if they are sued for actions done in the course of their official duties, unless any recovery will run against the tribe.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

In Re Benvin

It is a violation of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1) for a district court to become involved in guilty plea agreements.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Jones v. Williams

Under Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, relief is not an unequivocal expression of state consent to private suits for monetary damages.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

WildEarth Guardians v. USFS

Environmental Impact Statements by the United States Forest Service must provide the public with adequate information about the impact of snowmobile uses on big game winter habitat, thus allowing the public to play a role in the decision making process as required by National Environmental Policy Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

In The Matter of Cloobeck

A trustee must give notice and a hearing before an administrative expense is made.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

United States v. Yamashiro

A defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated when he is denied counsel during victim allocution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Lee v. Jacquez

For a state court to bar review of a habeas petition by a federal court, the state procedure rule must be both independent of the federal question and adequate; adequacy is determined by asking whether the state rule was firmly established and regularly followed at the time of the petitioner’s default.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Zapata v. Vasquez

In order to demonstrate ineffective counsel on habeas review, a defendant must demonstrate (1) the performance by the defendant’s attorney was deficient, (2) the performance prejudiced the defendant’s defense, and (3) that the state court’s application of these standards were unreasonable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States v. Evans

Evidence obtained during a traffic stop that was prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the traffic mission is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, unless there is independent reasonable suspicion to justify the delay.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Garcia v. Google

A plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction should be granted when: (1) the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm without the preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities favors the plaintiff; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

In re Adamson Apparel, Inc.

A corporate insider who personally guarantees the corporation’s loan is exempt from preference liability when (1) the insider had a bona-fide basis to waive the insider’s indemnification rights against the corporation, and (2) the insider took no subsequent actions that would repudiate the economic impact of that waiver.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

State of California v. FERC

Under § 205 of the Federal Power Act, in consideration of relief for transaction reporting violations, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission must not structure the remand process to limit its review to proof of market concentration under its hub-and-spoke test, or exclude an enforceable transaction reporting requirement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Pizzuto v. Ramirez

Motions fall within the permissible scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) if they claim that the federal habeas corpus court improperly held procedurally defaulted claims, and that the state’s attorney perpetrated fraud on the federal district court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Sahagun-Gallegos

The application notes to United States Sentencing Guidelines § 3E1.1 retroactively apply to pending criminal cases.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure