9th Circuit Court of Appeals (40 summaries)
United States v. Christensen
The two-step process to determine if the crime-fraud exception applies to potentially privileged materials requires: (1) a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person that in camera review may reveal evidence to establish the claim that the crime-fraud exception applies, and (2) an in camera review to determine privilege, and if shown, whether the crime-fraud exception applies.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Escobedo v. Apple American Group
It is an abuse of discretion when a court denies an in forma pauperis application based on the financial resources of the litigant’s spouse without a reasonable inquiry into the availability and sufficiency of the spouse’s funds.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Britton v. Colvin
An administrative law judge may disregard medical opinions that are brief, conclusory, and inadequately supported by clinical findings.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Nettles v. Grounds
A habeas claim is cognizable only if it will “necessarily spell speedier release” from custody, meaning that the relief sought will either terminate custody, accelerate the future date of release from custody, or reduce the level of custody.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
United States v. Boykin
If sentencing manipulation is proven by showing that the government’s conduct is extreme and outrageous, the court should apply a downward departure to the guidelines range during sentencing.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Fifty-Six Hope Road Music v. A.V.E.L.A.
The “likelihood of confusion” inquiry for a Lanham Act false endorsement claim includes the consideration of eight factors: (1) the level of recognition that the celebrity has among the segment of the society for whom the defendant’s product is intended; (2) the relatedness of the fame or success of the celebrity to the defendant’s product; (3) the similarity of the likeness used by the defendant to the actual celebrity; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) marketing channels used; (6) likely degree of purchaser care; (7) defendant’s intent on selecting the celebrity; and, (8) likelihood of expansion of the product lines; when the plaintiff is not the celebrity himself, the additional factor of the strength of association between the mark and the plaintiff is also considered.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
St. Alphonsus Med. Ctr. v. St. Luke’s Health Sys.
An efficiencies defense, that clearly demonstrates that the proposed merger enhances competition because of the increased efficiencies, can successfully rebut a prima facie case for a Clayton Act § 7 violation.
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
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. 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
Campion v. Old Republic Protection Co.
After the putative class representative voluntarily settles his individual claims, an appeal is moot if the class representative does not retain a personal stake in the case.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
San Luis v. Locke
A reviewing court must uphold agency action unless it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; Under this standard, an agency action is sustained if the agency has articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the conclusions made.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
United States v. Garcia-Santana
The generic federal definition of conspiracy, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(U) requires proof of an overt act.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
In Re: The Mortgage Store, Inc.
Upon the avoidance of a fraudulent transfer, a bankruptcy trustee may recover from the initial transferee, which is determined by whether the transferee has dominion over the asset and the right to put the asset to the transferee’s own purposes.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Gant v. County of Los Angeles
Warrants must satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement by containing the subject’s name and a detailed physical description.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Doe v. Harris
Content-neutral restrictions on protected speech must not burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Ibarra-Hernandez v. Holder
Using the Social Security number of an actual person without his knowledge or permission to get a job at a retail store is a crime involving moral turpitude.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
NRDC v. USDOT
Agency regulations that fill explicitly left gaps in legislation are subject to the arbitrary and capricious standard when under review.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Carpenters v. Building Trades
To plausibly allege predicate acts of extortion under the Hobbs Act, a plaintiff must allege the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
Carpenters v. Metal Trades
The duty of fair representation does not prevent unions from appointing or removing stewards based on union affiliation.
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
C.B. v. City of Sonora
For police acting at the behest of school officials to be entitled to qualified immunity against a Fourth Amendment violation claim, the court must determine (1) whether the official violated a constitutional right, (2) whether the constitutional right was clearly established, and (3) evaluate whether the police conduct was reasonable in light of the circumstances and not excessively intrusive.
Area(s) of Law:- Qualified Immunity
In Re: NVIDIA Corp. Sec. Litig.
Claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Security Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 must adequately allege a cogent and compelling inference of scienter to survive dismissal.
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Peter-Palican v. CNMI
A triable dispute must be present to survive summary judgment for retaliation, breach of contract, and estoppel claims.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Tatum v. Moody
The Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals from prolonged detention when the police, with deliberate indifference to, or in the face of a perceived risk that their actions will violate the individual’s right to be free of unjustified pretrial detention, withhold from the prosecutors information strongly indicative of the individual’s innocence.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Rudin v. Myles
Equitable tolling is available if extraordinary circumstances made it impossible to file an application for federal habeas relief within the limitations period.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Castellanos v. Small
A Batson motion for discriminatory use of peremptory challenges to exclude jurors must be granted if: (1) the defendant makes a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose; (2) the State’s justifications for the racial exclusion are not adequate; and, (3) the court decides based on the justifications offered that the State engaged in purposeful discrimination when it exercised the peremptory strike.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
United States v. Nora
Evidence must be suppressed if it was seized after arresting a suspect inside his home without first obtaining an arrest warrant or showing an exception to the warrant requirement.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Ctr. for Cmty. Action v. BNSF
A claim under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act citizen-suit provision must allege that a person has contributed or is contributing to the past or present handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Ghanim v. Colvin
An administrative law judge must provide reasons supported by substantial evidence to reject the opinions of a treating physician.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Thomas v. County of Riverside
To survive summary judgment in a First Amendment retaliation case, evidence of materially adverse employment actions that are reasonably likely to deter protected speech must be provided.
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
Loos v. Immersion Corp.
A securities fraud claim may be dismissed if the announcement of an investigation, without more, is used to establish the loss causation element.
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles
A district court errors in imposing pre-filing restrictions when it only relies on an individual’s actions in two lawsuits and fails to consider less restrictive sanctions.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States v. Gowadia
Under the McNabb-Mallory rule, admission of a confession is not barred if the confession was obtained within six hours of arrest; also, if the confession occurred before presentment and beyond six hours, the court must decide whether the delay was unreasonable or unnecessary, and if it was, the confession should be suppressed.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 9(b), a claim under the False Claims Act must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief through factual allegations, and must adequately plead falsity.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Anderson v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco
To assert a valid bona fide occupational qualification defense for sex discrimination, an employer must prove: (1) that the job qualification justifying the discrimination is reasonably necessary to the essence of its business; and (2) that sex is a legitimate proxy for the qualification because (a) it has a substantial basis for believing that all or nearly all individuals of that particular sex lack the qualification, or (b) it is impossible or highly impractical to insure by individual testing that its employees will have the necessary qualifications for the job.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
United States v. Sullivan
Venue in district court is proper when an essential conduct element of the offense continues into the charging district.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
ProtectMarriage.com v. Bowen
The constitutional validity of contribution disclosure requirements is evaluated using exacting scrutiny, which balances a burden on First Amendment rights and the substantial government interests of (1) providing the electorate with information about the source of campaign money, (2) deterring corruption and the appearance of corruption, and (3) keeping accurate records.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Eclectic Props. East v. Marcus & Millichap Co.
To bring forth a RICO violation claim, a plaintiff must provide sufficient factual allegations that establish a plausible theory of specific intent to defraud, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 9(b), otherwise the claim will be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States v. Castro-Verdugo
The district court has jurisdiction to revoke probation when (1) the defendant is still serving a term of probation and (2) the defendant violates its conditions.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
United States v. Gomez
To attack a deportation order, an alien defendant must demonstrate: (1) exhaustion of any administrative remedies to seek relief against the order; (2) the deportation proceedings deprived judicial review; and (3) the entry of the order was fundamentally unfair if due process rights were violated in the deportation proceeding and the defendant suffered prejudice as a result of those proceeding defects.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
United States v. Gillenwater
To authorize an order for involuntary medication to attain competency of a defendant, the court must find clear and convincing evidence that there is (1) an important governmental interest; (2) involuntary medication will significantly further that interest; (3) involuntary medication is necessary; and (4) the administration is medically appropriate.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law