( 950 summaries )

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Updates

<
0 of x
>

Friend v. Holder

Immigration: The controlling law governing transmittal of citizenship is generally the statute in place at the time of the child’s birth unless the child is born out of wedlock to a mother who was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth and previously resided in the U.S. or one of its territories, if so, the Nationality Act of 1940 may be applied retroactively.

(Filing Date: 04-30-2013)

In the Matter of: Fitness Holdings Int'l

Bankruptcy Law: Bankruptcy courts may recharacterize loans as an equity investment for the purpose of § 548 and must apply state bankruptcy law to determine if a creditor has a "right to payment."

(Filing Date: 04-30-2013)

United States v. Stanfill El

Constitutional Law: The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial is not triggered by any amount of potential restitution; and the Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury trial is not implicated by the potential award of restitution as a result of a criminal prosecution.

(Filing Date: 04-30-2013)

United States v. Ramirez

Criminal Procedure: A judge may not preclude jurors from drawing legitimate inferences with the use of instructions that effectively put such inferences off-limits; additionally, prior convictions as sentencing enhancements under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) are evaluated by a judge under the preponderance of the evidence standard.

(Filing Date: 04-29-2013)

Clevo Co. v. Hecny Transp., Inc.

Admiralty: Guarantees with no express statute of limitations can place a seller and freight forwarder in direct contractual privity however, a statute of limitations in the bills of lading may bar recovery.

(Filing Date: 04-26-2013)

Grand Canyon Skywalk Dev. v. 'Sa' Nyu Wa Inc.

Indian Law: A tribal court may assert jurisdiction over non-Indian corporations on tribal land where the corporation has entered into a consensual agreement with an Indian corporation and the bad faith and futility exceptions to the exhaustion of tribal remedies requirement are not met when the bad faith actor is merely a party and not the tribal court itself and there are still adequate opportunities to challenge the tribal court’s jurisdiction.

(Filing Date: 04-26-2013)

Conservation Northwest v. Sherman

Administrative Law: A district court abuses its discretion when it enters a consent decree that amends an agency rule which is permanent, substantial, and would have otherwise been subject to statutory rulemaking procedures

(Filing Date: 04-25-2013)

Mondaca-Vega v. Holder

Immigration: Findings of fact related to questions of citizenship are reviewed for clear error.

(Filing Date: 04-25-2013)

Jamerson v. Runnels

Habeas Corpus: In order to overrule the trial court's determination on the credibility of racially discriminatory preemptory challenges, there must be sufficient evidence that the trial court erred.

(Filing Date: 04-24-2013)

Schwab v. CIR

Tax Law: The term "amount actually distributed" in a life insurance policy, for purposes of calculating what is taxable, means the fair market value of the what was distributed under the policy, and "surrender charges associated with a variable universal life insurance policy may be considered as part of the general inquiry into a policy's fair market value."

(Filing Date: 04-24-2013)

Radcliffe_v._Experian Info. Solutions

Civil Law: An incentive award for class representatives conditioned on support of settlement makes the class representatives inadequate and creates a conflict of interest for class counsel between the class representatives and the class.

(Filing Date: 04-22-2013)

Parra v. PacifiCare Arizona

Insurance Law: The Medicare Advantage Organization Statute does not grant a private right of action to recover payments made on behalf of a plan participant, and a Medicare Advantage Organization plan cannot sue the survivors of a plan participant for reimbursement for “medical expenses out of the proceeds of an automobile insurance policy.”

(Filing Date: 04-19-2013)

United States_v._McClendon

Criminal Procedure: A defendant who walks away, refuses to comply with police officers’ commands, and reaches into his waistband is not considered “seized” under the Fourth Amendment until he submits to the authority of the police.

(Filing Date: 04-19-2013)

United States v. Anguiano-Morfin

Criminal Procedure: Although the “willfulness” requirement in 18 U.S.C. § 911 necessitates knowledge on the part of the defendant, jury instructions are adequate under circumstances where a “misrepresentation...[is] deliberately made” because this “suggests a knowing falsehood.”

(Filing Date: 04-18-2013)

United States v. Barnes

Criminal Procedure: An officer engages in prohibited “two-step interrogation” when the officer, in a custodial setting, deliberately delays giving Miranda warnings to induce cooperation in an ongoing investigation.

(Filing Date: 04-18-2013)

Makaeff v. Trump University

First Amendment: Pursuant to California’s Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute, a public figure is held to a higher standard in proving that a person committing the crime of defamation against them acted with "actual malice."

(Filing Date: 04-17-2013)

MHC Financing LP_v_City of San Rafael

Property Law: Diminution in value is not sufficient to establish a private or public taking, and when an ordinance is in effect prior to acquisition of property, the proper analysis of the economic impact under Penn Central is a comparison of the economic impact at the time when the property was acquired and the economic effect after the property was acquired.

(Filing Date: 04-17-2013)

Assoc. Gen. Contractors v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp.

Constitutional Law: An affirmative action program which gives bidding preference in construction to specifically identified minorities based on a strong evidentiary showing of discrimination is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause so long as it is narrowly tailored to benefit the limited groups identified to have actually suffered pervasive and ongoing discrimination.

(Filing Date: 04-16-2013)

Cameron v. Craig

Criminal Procedure: When executing a lawful search warrant and arrest, an officer is not required to obtain further evidence, or interview the subject of the search warrant, once probable cause is established; whether excessive force was used in the execution of that warrant is generally a question of fact for the jury.

(Filing Date: 04-16-2013)

Donald Wige v. City of Los Angeles

Civil Procedure: Where an officer’s testimony presented at a preliminary hearing is “materially different” from the statement used to obtain probable cause and the state court does not make a factual determination as to the “genuine dispute” of the credibility of that testimony, issue preclusion does not attach to bar later litigation.

(Filing Date: 04-16-2013)

Petersen v. Boeing Co.

Civil Procedure: In order to determine whether a forum selection clause should be enforced and a case dismissed for improper venue, an evidentiary hearing should be held to determine if the clause was the product of fraud or overreach and if its enforcement would deprive the party wishing to repudiate his day in court.

(Filing Date: 04-16-2013)

Rodriguez v. Robbins

Immigration: District court’s grant of a preliminary injunction, which required “the government to identify all class members, detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c) and 1225(b) … and ‘provide each of them with a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge with power to grant their release’” was upheld.

(Filing Date: 04-16-2013)

U.S. v. Trujillo

Criminal Procedure: District courts are not jurisdictionally barred from hearing 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) motions; however in denying such a motion under § 3553(a) the court must give sufficient explanation; and the Ex Post Facto Clause does not prohibit an upward departure in sentencing so long as the original sentence is not exceeded.

(Filing Date: 04-16-2013)

Sams v. Yahoo! Inc.

Civil Law: The good faith reliance defense available under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2703(e), is satisfied when "the defendant complies with a subpoena that appears valid on its face, in the absence of any indication of irregularity sufficient to put the defendant on notice that the subpoena may be invalid or contrary to applicable law."

(Filing Date: 04-15-2013)

United States v. Garrido

Criminal Law: Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Skilling v. United States, 18 U.S.C. § 1346 applies only to honest services fraud cases involving bribery or kickbacks, failure to disclose material conflict of interest does not apply; additionally bribery convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 666 do not require an official act.

(Filing Date: 04-15-2013)

Busk v. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc.

Labor Law: The Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action opt-out mechanism does not conflict with the Fair Labor Standards Act opt-in mechanism and therefore state law claims must not be dismissed; additionally anti-theft security checks are “integral and indispensable” to the warehouse employees’ duties and must be compensated.

(Filing Date: 04-12-2013)

Sexton v. NDEX West, LLC

Civil Procedure: After a matter has been removed to federal court, the doctrine of prior exclusive jurisdiction in inapplicable when a state court does not retain jurisdiction over the appellants’ property and the Colorado River abstention doctrine is inapplicable when appellants do not have concurrently proceeding actions relating to their property in both state and federal court.

(Filing Date: 04-12-2013)

Blum v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith

Civil Procedure: A motion to intervene in a long-concluded case is not untimely when the purpose of the motion is to seek modification of a protective order; the order can be modified to prevent the destruction of documents relevant to pending litigation.

(Filing Date: 04-11-2013)

Kilgore v. Keybank, Nat’l Ass’n

Arbitration: Under California state law, an arbitration clause that also prohibits claims from being brought as a class action may be overcome only if it is both procedurally and substantively unconscionable.

(Filing Date: 04-11-2013)

Blandino-Medina v. Holder

Immigration: The Immigration and Nationality Act requires that crimes not listed as a “‘particularly serious crime’ per se,” be analyzed by the Board of Immigration Appeals on a case-by-case analysis in accordance with the factors established in Matter of Frentescu.

(Filing Date: 04-10-2013)

Cui v. Holder

Immigration: Inconsistencies that “go to the heart” of an alien’s asylum claim will provide sufficient evidence to deny a petition based on adverse credibility.

(Filing Date: 04-10-2013)

Edgerly v. City & County of San Francisco

42 USC § 1983: Consistent with California Court of Appeal's decisions and the statute's plain language, California Penal Code § 853.5 provides the exclusive grounds for the custodial arrest of a person arrested for an infraction.

(Filing Date: 04-10-2013)

In re Western States Antitrust Litig.

Preemption: State antitrust claims arising outside of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s jurisdiction are not preempted by the Natural Gas Act; denying leave to amend is proper when the party seeking the amendment has known the facts and theory since the case began; and denying dismissal of defendants is proper if the defendants fail to make a “compelling case” for why the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be unreasonable.

(Filing Date: 04-10-2013)

Romero-Ochoa v. Holder

Immigration: The presumption of a lack of “good moral character” for an alien who has been incarcerated for more than six months is a reasonable restriction which Congress may impose and does not violate Equal Protection principles.

(Filing Date: 04-10-2013)

Kealoha v. Office of Workers Comp. Programs

Workers Compensation: A suicide or suicide attempt, even when planned, may be compensable under the Longshore Workers’ Compensation Act using the proper test, which requires a “direct and unbroken chain of causation between a work-related injury and the suicide attempt.”

(Filing Date: 04-09-2013)

McDaniel v. Wells Fargo Investments

Preemption: The federal Securities Exchange Act and related “self-regulatory organizations” rules preempt the enforcement of California Labor Code § 450(a) against brokerage houses that forbid their employees from opening outside trading accounts where the state restriction imposed is a significant federal regulatory objective.

(Filing Date: 04-09-2013)

Alliance of Nonprofits v. Kipper

Preemption: Under the Liability Risk Retention Act, which preempts state laws that prohibit a risk retention group from operating in the state, the risk retention group is not entitled to attorney's fees because the preemption is not a "right" enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

(Filing Date: 04-08-2013)

United States of America v. Yuman-Hernandez

Sentencing: In the context of a “fictitious stash house robbery,” in order to establish sentencing entrapment a defendant only needs to show either a lack of intent or a lack of capability.

(Filing Date: 04-08-2013)

Castro v. Terhune

Evidence: Because the “some evidence” analysis is an “evidentiary standard,” procedural due process guarantees a California inmate’s administrative "validation" as a gang "associate" be reviewed under the “some evidence” standard.

(Filing Date: 04-05-2013)

Firebaugh Canal Water Dist. v. United States

Administrative Law: The United States Department of the Interior’s broad discretion precludes claims for inadequate drainage under the San Luis Act, and a failure to provide adequate drainage does not constitute “agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed” under the Administrative Procedure Act.

(Filing Date: 04-05-2013)

Knappe v. United States

Tax Law: An executor of an estate has a duty to ascertain filing deadlines and will not be excused for reasonable cause by relying on erroneous advice about nonsubstantive tax issues, such as extended filing deadlines.

(Filing Date: 04-04-2013)

North East Med. Svcs. v. Cal. DHCS

Constitutional Law: The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution bars claims for retroactive monetary relief, but prospective relief may be granted if "the complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective."

(Filing Date: 04-04-2013)

Ecological Rights Foundation v. PG&E

Environmental Law: Under the Clean Water Act, a complaint must allege that the source of pollution stems from a point source or industrial activity, and under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, a complaint must allege that the pollutant is statutorily defined hazardous or solid waste.

(Filing Date: 04-03-2013)

United States v. Augustine

Sentencing: Defendants sentenced prior to the enactment of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 are not eligible for a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because the Act does not apply retroactively.

(Filing Date: 04-03-2013)

United States v. Jennings

Sentencing: Simple tax fraud involving “sophisticated means” warrants a two-level sentencing enhancement upon conviction.

(Filing Date: 04-03-2013)

Ceron v. Holder

Immigration: Under Gonzales v. Barber, the Board of Immigration Appeals has jurisdiction over an alien convicted of a crime where he could have been sentenced to at least one year’s imprisonment, even if the actual sentence was for less amount of time, suspended, or imposed through probation; additionally, the designation of a felony by a trial court on the minute order will be given deference in determining a “wobbler.”

(Filing Date: 04-02-2013)

United States v. Juvenile Male

Juvenile Law: The proper commitment proceeding for a juvenile in federal detention is under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act, as opposed to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d); jurisdiction for such decision is determined at the time of the information.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2013)

United States v. Reyes-Ceja

Immigration: A deportee “found in” the United States by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, while serving a sentence on an unrelated crime, may have his sentence enhanced pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines for being under a criminal justice sentence.

(Filing Date: 04-01-2013)

Westendorf v. West Coast Contractors

Labor Law: A prima facie case of employment discrimination requires a showing that the conduct is so severe or pervasive that a reasonable person would find it hostile or abusive; a claim for retaliation, however, only requires a showing the plaintiff engaged in a protected activity and was treated adversely for it.

(Filing Date: 04-01-2013)

Gonzales v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Immigration: In deciding whether to retroactively apply law in determination of I-212 waiver applications, the court must evaluate according to the five factors set forth through the <em>Montgomery Ward</em> test and decide on a case-by-case basis whether retroactive application is appropriate.

(Filing Date: 03-29-2013)

In re: The Morning Star Packing, Co.

Remedies: Under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (“MVRA”), crime victims may file for restitution regardless of the civil remedies available to the victim or the defendant’s economic circumstances, unless determining restitution would “complicate or prolong the sentencing process” using a balancing test that the “need to provide restitution…is outweighed by the burden on the sentencing process.”

(Filing Date: 03-29-2013)

Tanedo v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd.

Appellate Procedure: Under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine a denial of a motion for immunity from liability cannot be instantly appealed.

(Filing Date: 03-27-2013)

Lim v. Holder

Immigration: The “continuous presence exception” available to aliens who served in active duty in the United States Armed Forces is a limited exception to cancellation of removal and does not extend to another country’s military.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2013)

Rubin v. City of Lancaster

First Amendment: The City of Lancaster's practice and policy of allowing city council meetings to begin with a citizen-led invocation open to any local congregation who volunteers does not constitute a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as long as the prayer does not “proselytize, advance, or disparage” a faith or “affiliate the government with a particular faith.”

(Filing Date: 03-26-2013)

SEIU v. NUHW

Labor Law: Section 501 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act creates a fiduciary duty to the union as an organization, not just to the union’s rank-and-file members, and union officials who divert union resources for the purposes of establishing a new competing local union violate their fiduciary duties to the organization itself.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2013)

United States v. Jinian

Criminal Law: Interstate wire transfer of money under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 “furthers a fraudulent scheme” where the interstate wiring allows the fraud to continue over time and is essential to making the transferred funds permanently available to the perpetrator of the fraud.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2013)

United States v. Ruiz

Criminal Law: A unanimity instruction is not required when a conviction is based on a single, continuous act, and a prosecutor’s improper vouching during closing arguments may be harmless error when the evidence of guilt is substantial.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2013)

In re: Welsh

Bankruptcy Law: The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act specifically prohibits the inclusion or evaluation of a debtor’s social security benefits when reviewing the debtor’s proposed Chapter 13 plan according to §1325(a)’s requirement for good faith, and bad faith is not present merely because the debtor’s properly calculated disposal income is seriously reduced by payments to secured creditors, leaving relatively little chance that unsecured creditors would be substantially repaid.

(Filing Date: 03-25-2013)

Luvdarts v. AT & T Mobility

Copyright: Mobile carriers are not vicariously liable for copyright infringement occurring on their networks when the plaintiff fails to allege the carriers had a “necessary right and ability to supervise the infringing conduct,” and the carriers are not contributorily liable for copyright infringement when the carriers did not have the “requisite specific knowledge of infringement.”

(Filing Date: 03-25-2013)

Perez v. Nidek Co., LTD.

Preemption: In order for a state-law claim to escape preemption by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), the plaintiff must be suing for conduct that violates the FDCA, not suing because the conduct violates the FDCA.

(Filing Date: 03-25-2013)

Amponsah v. Holder

Administrative Law: Nunc pro tunc adoption decrees must be considered on a case-by-case basis in determining whether an adopted child qualifies as a "child" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(b)(1), and the Board of Immigration Appeals’ blanket rule against recognizing states’ nunc pro tunc adoption decrees was an “unreasonable and impermissible construction” of the statute.

(Filing Date: 03-22-2013)

Ellins v. City of Sierra Madre

42 USC § 1983: Leading a vote of no-confidence against the Chief of Police involved a matter of public concern, and the delay in pay increase constituted an adverse employment action.

(Filing Date: 03-22-2013)

Poyson v. Ryan

Sentencing: Habeas corpus relief will not be granted when, during sentencing, the court utilizes a causal nexus test to mitigating factors in order to determine the weight of the evidence and the record does not show whether the court considered the absence of a causal nexus as a “permissible weighing mechanism” or as an “unconstitutional screening mechanism.”

(Filing Date: 03-22-2013)

Columbia Pictures Industries v. Fung

Copyright: The Grokster test for copyright infringement extends to websites even though the wording of the test’s first element applies to “devices” and “products.”

(Filing Date: 03-21-2013)

Tibble v. Edison International

Administrative Law: Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), the six-year statute of limitations is measured from the time the decision to include the investment plan is initially made; a safe harbor under ERISA § 404(c) applies only to a pension plan that “provides for individual accounts and permits a participant or beneficiary to exercise control over the assets in his account.”

(Filing Date: 03-21-2013)

Li v. Kerry

Administrative Law: The district court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims when there was no “live case or controversy” about visa cut-off dates and allocation of visa numbers, and when the plaintiffs did not allege that the “defendants failed to take discrete actions they were legally required to take.”

(Filing Date: 03-20-2013)

United States v. $11,500.00 in U.S. Currency

Civil Law: Dismissal of civil forfeiture action under 21. U.S.C. § 881 for failure to identify the bailor was an abuse of discretion, predominantly because the omission did not appear to be calculated, did not delay or extend the proceedings, and did not prejudice the government.

(Filing Date: 03-20-2013)

County of Sonoma v. FHFA

Administrative Law: A directive issued by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prohibiting the enterprises from purchasing assets FHFA deems risky is an unreviewable action by FHFA as a conservator and not as a regulator, thus formal rulemaking proceedings, including notice-and-comment are not required.

(Filing Date: 03-19-2013)

In re: Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practice Litig.

Appellate Procedure: To meet the Chief Justice’s Guidelines for an Inter-district Assignment of an Article III Judge, there must be more than an over-burdening to warrant bringing in a visiting judge, and even in the case of severe or unexpected over-burdening; the first remedy is to bring in a visiting judge from another court within the circuit.

(Filing Date: 03-19-2013)

Gulbrandson v. Ryan

Habeas Corpus: Defense counsel was not unreasonably ineffective by failing to have the defendant testify as a guilt stage witness if it is reasonable it would harm the defense, or by failing to have a psychiatric expert testify as to the state of mind at the sentencing hearing because it would have been cumulative of evidence already before the court.

(Filing Date: 03-18-2013)

In re: Amy & Vicky

Criminal Law: Circuit precedent remains binding “in the absence of ‘intervening higher authority’ that is ‘clearly irreconcilable,’” and a court abuses its discretion when it denies restitution based on a presentence report indicating there is insufficient evidence to establish a causal connection between defendant’s offense and petitions’ losses when, in fact, the record contains sufficient evidence to establish such a causal connection.

(Filing Date: 03-18-2013)

Allen v. FDIC

Civil Procedure: In order to remove a case to federal court under 12 U.S.C. § 1819(b)(2), the FDIC must be a real party in interest, and not merely an intervenor; however such restriction may be overcome if the FDIC can show a “threat to federal interests.”

(Filing Date: 03-15-2013)

Chubb Custom Ins. v. Space Systems/Loral

Environmental Law: An insurer cannot make a subrogation claim under §107(a) of CERCLA, and must allege the insured is a “claimant” in order to make a claim under §112(c) of CERCLA.

(Filing Date: 03-15-2013)

Mamigonian v. Biggs

Immigration: District courts do not have jurisdiction over petitions for habeas relief on orders of removal, over complaints regarding pending applications, or over mandamus claims regarding decisions already made by agencies; however, the REAL ID Act does provide for review of final, non-discretionary determinations by USCIS.

(Filing Date: 03-14-2013)

Mashiri v. Department of Education

Immigration: The decision by the Department of Education to deny a Stafford loan to an alien awaiting a grant of asylum was proper since the alien could not provide evidence from the Immigration and Naturalization Service that he was not in the United States temporarily.

(Filing Date: 03-14-2013)

Milke v. Ryan

Habeas Corpus: Under Brady and Giglio , exculpatory evidence of a key witness’ past misconduct and disciplinary actions must be produced by the state in order ensure a fair trial.

(Filing Date: 03-14-2013)

UMG Recordings v. Shelter Capital Partners

Copyright: For the purposes of the “safe harbor” affirmative defense under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act §512(c) website owners are “service providers” and the defense encompasses certain “access-facilitating automatic functions;” additionally, the “red flag” knowledge test was adopted; and Napster liability does not invalidate a §512(c) defense unless the “service provider” has the “right and ability to control” users infringing activity via an exertion of “substantial influence.”

(Filing Date: 03-14-2013)

United States v. Alvirez

Indian Law: Under the Fed. R. Evid. §§ 902(1) and 902(2), Indian tribes are not political subdivisions capable of issuing self-authenticating documents and, therefore, tribes and tribal officers cannot authenticate a Certificate of Indian Blood.

(Filing Date: 03-14-2013)

Knight v. Ahlin

Habeas Corpus: The Younger doctrine, of preventing a court from interfering with a state proceeding, does not apply where the proceedings have been postponed pending a decision by the federal court, since it does not constitute an "ongoing proceeding."

(Filing Date: 03-13-2013)

United Transp. Union v. BNSF Railway Company

Labor Law: An order, and not just an award, stemming from a Railway Labor Act arbitration panel is reviewable by a District Court and an allegation of corruption within an arbitration panel is a proper complaint pursuant to the National Railroad Adjustment Board 45 U.S.C. § 153.

(Filing Date: 03-13-2013)

Gilstrap v. United Air Lines

Tort Law: The Air Carrier Access Act does not preempt state law personal injury tort claims but, instead, can describe the duty element of a negligence claim. Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act does not include terminals for transportation by aircraft within the definition of "places of public accommodation."

(Filing Date: 03-12-2013)

Shell Offshore v. Greenpeace

Admiralty: A preliminary injunction to prevent an organization from engaging in a “direct action” campaign of illegal activities against another entity during a specified yearly period may be considered ripe, even though the order expired if it was capable of repetition, yet evading review; additionally, the district court had proper jurisdiction on a dispute arising out of drilling in the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf.

(Filing Date: 03-12-2013)

United States v. Hayat

Criminal Law: Exclusion of hearsay statements which may help establish the bias of a witness does not violate the confrontation clause if the facts already on the record were "adequate to develop the issues of bias."

(Filing Date: 03-12-2013)

SOFA Entertainment v. Dodger Productions

Copyright: The “fair use” doctrine of 17 U.S.C. § 17 protects the use of a short television clip in an autobiographical production when use of the clip is for historical significance and its use does not usurp the demand for the original clip.

(Filing Date: 03-11-2013)

Libertarian Party v. Bowen

Standing: In order to enjoin state election laws and meet constitutional standing in a pre-enforcement action, the plaintiffs must allege both a concrete plan to violate that statute and defendant's specific threat of enforcement.

(Filing Date: 03-09-2013)

Gonzalez-Cervantes v. Holder

Immigration: There is no “realistic probability” that California courts would apply Cal. Penal Code § 243.4(e) to conduct that does not meet the generic federal definition of “moral turpitude.”

(Filing Date: 03-08-2013)

United States v. Cotterman

Criminal Procedure: Evidence obtained from a laptop computer after a full forensic examination conducted 170 miles away from where the laptop was seized by border control agents is constitutional where the agents had reasonable suspicion to conduct the search.

(Filing Date: 03-08-2013)

United States v. King

Criminal Law: The Fourth Amendment permits a suspicionless search of a probationer’s residence when, as part of a probation agreement, the probationer has accepted a suspicionless-search condition.

(Filing Date: 03-08-2013)

Bell v. City of Boise

42 USC § 1983: Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a party cannot seek review of an adverse state court judgment in federal court if the action “contains a forbidden de facto appeal of a state court decision and it alleges a legal error by the state court.”

(Filing Date: 03-07-2013)

Corns v. Laborers Int'l Union

Labor Law: Under the Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act, an international labor organization that represents a group of local unions is not permitted to pass a dues increase by a vote of local union members because the local union individuals are not members of the international labor organization.

(Filing Date: 03-07-2013)

Walker v. Martel

Habeas Corpus: Under Strickland v. Washington , it was not “objectively unreasonable” for the California Supreme Court to conclude that a defendant’s conviction or sentence would have been different had counsel objected to the use of limp-causing leg restraints.

(Filing Date: 03-07-2013)

Alaska Rent-a-Car v. Avis Budget Group

Contract Law: A promisee who joins a settlement agreement after most other promissees is still a proper party to a breach of that agreement.

(Filing Date: 03-06-2013)

In re: Garcia

Bankruptcy Law: Even a luxury motor vehicle may be exempted under California’s wildcard exemption, and 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(B) allows the avoidance of a lien on an exempt vehicle that is a “tool of the debtor’s trade” as long as the lien is a non-possessory and non-purchase-money encumbrance.

(Filing Date: 03-05-2013)

United States v. Brizan

Criminal Procedure: Criminal Procedure: A waiver of appeal in a plea agreement will be upheld as long the district court conducts a thorough Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy and the sentence does not contradict any plea agreement or exceed a statutory limit.

(Filing Date: 03-05-2013)

Great Old Broads for Wilderness v. Kimbell

Administrative Law: A plaintiff has adequately exhausted administrative remedies when claims made at the administrative appeals level are so similar to those brought at the federal level that the agency was put on notice.

(Filing Date: 03-04-2013)

Valle del Sol V. Whiting

First Amendment: The day labor provisions of Senate Bill 1070 impermissibly restrict commercial speech because under Central Hudson , they are more extensive than necessary to advance Arizona's stated government interest in traffic safety.

(Filing Date: 03-04-2013)

Wang v. Chinese Daily News

Labor Law: Following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes , the Court of Appeals determined that Plaintiffs' class certification must be reconsidered by the district court.

(Filing Date: 03-04-2013)

A.D. v. California Highway Patrol

Constitutional Law: A police officer violates the liberty interest afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause when he shoots and kills a person with “the purpose to harm, unrelated to a legitimate law enforcement objective.”

(Filing Date: 03-03-2013)

San Luis Unit Food Producers v. United States

Administrative Law: Administrative Procedure Act § 706(1) claims can proceed “only where a plaintiff asserts that an agency failed to take a discrete agency action that it is required to take” since “broad programmatic attacks on an agency’s administration of a program” are prohibited.

(Filing Date: 03-01-2013)

Tamayo-Tamayo v. Holder

Immigration: When the history of a statute does not suggest procedural interpretation, substantive interpretation applies as long as it does not render the statute superfluous or lead to absurd results. A removal order under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) can be reinstated from its original date and is not “superseded” or invalidated because a later removal order exists.

(Filing Date: 02-28-2013)

In re: Marciano

Bankruptcy Law: Unstayed non-default state judgments on appeal are “not contingent as to liability or the subject of a bona fide dispute as to liability or amount” for purposes of involuntary petitions pursuant to § 303(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.

(Filing Date: 02-27-2013)

Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd

Admiralty: A piracy claim requires acts "committed for private ends... [which] include those pursued on personal, moral or philosophical grounds." Belief that your actions serve the public does not insulate them from piracy claims.

(Filing Date: 02-25-2013)

Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd

(Filing Date: 02-25-2013)

Kuxhausen v. BMW Financial Services

Civil Procedure: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, the time limits for removal are not triggered where (1) the removability of the initial complaint cannot be determined without valuation information from the defendant and (2) no subsequent document filed with the court provides a basis for removal.

(Filing Date: 02-25-2013)

Kuxhausen v. BMW Financial Services

(Filing Date: 02-25-2013)

Sonoma Cnty. Ass'n of Retired Emp. v. Sonoma Cnty.

Contract Law: “[U]nder California law, a vested right to health benefits for retired county employees can be implied under certain circumstances from a county ordinance or resolution.”

(Filing Date: 02-25-2013)

Sonoma Cnty. Ass'n of Retired Emp. v. Sonoma Cnty.

Contract Law: “[U]nder California law, a vested right to health benefits for retired county employees can be implied under certain circumstances from a county ordinance or resolution.”

(Filing Date: 02-25-2013)

Gasparyan v. Holder

Immigration: When considering the "extraordinary circumstances" exception of an immigration appeal denial of asylum based on a one-year timeline expiration, the immigration law judge must determine that an extraordinary circumstance existed. Only then must the immigration judge use the three-factor test laid out in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5) that determines "whether extraordinary circumstances may excuse an untimely asylum application."

(Filing Date: 02-20-2013)

Gasparyan v. Holder

(Filing Date: 02-20-2013)

Hartmann v. California Dep't of Corrections

42 USC § 1983: To establish a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, a plaintiff-inmate who practices a non-traditional religion must plead sufficient facts showing that prison officials denied her a “reasonable opportunity” to freely exercise her faith comparable to inmates “adhering to conventional religious precepts.”

(Filing Date: 02-19-2013)

AT&T Mobility LLC v. AU Optronics Corp.

Constitutional Law: “To the extent a defendant’s conspiratorial conduct is sufficiently connected to California, and is not ‘slight and casual,’ the application of California [antitrust] law to that conduct is ‘neither arbitrary nor fundamentally unfair,’ and the application of California law does not violate that defendant’s rights under the Due Process Clause.”

(Filing Date: 02-14-2013)

Maxwell v. County of San Diego

Constitutional Law: Where a police officer impedes a gunshot victim’s access to medical care and, thus, places the victim in a worse position than she was in, the police officer is liable for a due process violation because, under the “danger creation” exception, the officer is not entitled to qualified immunity.

(Filing Date: 02-14-2013)

Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder

Immigration: For purposes of seeking asylum, the "social visibility" requirement of “membership in a social group” refers to "perception" and does not require "on-sight" visibility, and those who have publicly testified against gang members in court meet the social visibility requirement.

(Filing Date: 02-13-2013)

Bylsma v. Burger King Corp.

Tort Law: The plaintiff is entitled to amend his complaint in light of a Washington Supreme Court decision issued in response to the certified question of whether “the Washington Product Liability Act permit[s] relief for emotional distress damages, in the absence of physical injury, caused to the direct purchaser by being served and touching, but not consuming, a contaminated product.”

(Filing Date: 02-12-2013)

Dichter-Mad Family Partners v. United States

Civil Procedure: Plaintiffs must overcome a strong presumption that the United States is immune from prosecution for the actions of its agents under the ’discretionary function’ exception to the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity in the Federal Tort Claims Act. 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a).

(Filing Date: 02-12-2013)

United States v. May

Sentencing: Under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, a court may consider damages that arise as a result of prevention measures directed at an ongoing crime spree. Under the Mandatory Victim's Restitution Act, where a convicted act occurred after damages arose, the convicted act cannot be the basis for restitution of the damages.

(Filing Date: 02-12-2013)

Padgett v. Loventhal

Attorney Fees: Remand is necessary where, for a reduced attorney fee and cost award, the district court fails to explain how it determined the appropriateness of the award amount.

(Filing Date: 02-11-2013)

Ford v. City of Yakima

42 USC § 1983: A police officer who arrests an individual due to retaliatory animus, even if there is probable cause, violates a clearly established right for the purpose of § 1983.

(Filing Date: 02-08-2013)

Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona

First Amendment: A city ordinance that categorizes noncommercial speech based on objective factors, like size and duration, serves a significant government interest and leaves open ample alternative channels of communication, is not a content based restriction and is a constitutional time, place and manner restriction.

(Filing Date: 02-08-2013)

United States v. Petri

Sentencing: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 32(i)(3)(B) requires a district court to address only unresolved factual objections to the presentence report. When explaining a sentence, the district court does not need to address every assertion made within each argument presented during sentencing.

(Filing Date: 02-08-2013)

Cannedy v. Adams

Habeas Corpus: A defendant is denied effective assistance of counsel in a lewd acts case where defense counsel fails to interview witnesses who can corroborate the defendant's claim that the victim had motive to make false accusations.

(Filing Date: 02-07-2013)

Multistar Industries, Inc. vs. USDOT

Administrative Law: Under the Hobbs Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, where the basis of an appeal from an administrative decision and order was not a factor in the agency's final decision, the Court of Appeals can not review the decision or order. A petitioner is not denied due process when an agency declines to review findings that were not the basis of the agency's final action.

(Filing Date: 02-07-2013)

Recinto v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs

Administrative Law: The Veteran’s Administration’s (“VA”) exclusive use of the National Personnel Records Center (“NPRC”) to determine eligibility for benefits under the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund (“FVEC”) does not violate due process under the Fifth Amendment.

(Filing Date: 02-07-2013)

United States v. Stone

Criminal Law: The Supreme Court’s holding in Flores-Figueroa v. United States does not change the Ninth Circuit’s holding “that the government need not prove that a defendant knew the firearm or ammunition had traveled in interstate commerce in order to obtain” a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) because the interstate commerce portion is merely jurisdictional.

(Filing Date: 02-07-2013)

Correa-Rivera v. Holder

Immigration: In an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, an alien meets the third Lozada requirement, that "the motion should reflect whether a complaint has been filed" with proper authorities, by including a copy of a complaint to the state bar.

(Filing Date: 02-06-2013)

Dyer v. Hornbeck

Habeas Corpus: The Court affirmed the "district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging the admission of statements Dyer made to police" and "concluded that fairminded jurists could disagree as to whether Dyer was “in custody” when she made certain disputed statements," therefore the "state court’s decision . . . was not an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and its progeny."

(Filing Date: 02-06-2013)

Smith v. Hedgpeth

Habeas Corpus: For purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, “[c]learly established federal law does not require the consideration of sentencing enhancements when determining if one offense is a lesser-included offense of another under the ‘same elements’ test.”

(Filing Date: 02-05-2013)

United States v. Preston

Sentencing: A lifetime term of supervised release for the offense of abusive sexual contact was proper when the sentencing judge provided ample reasons for imposing the term and accounted for the defendant’s age and mental capacity.

(Filing Date: 02-05-2013)

Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar

Environmental Law: The Bureau of Land Management can allow the continuation of a mining plan, despite a hiatus in the mining operations. That continuation can occur without additional review under the National Environmental Policy Act, as long at there is not a new "major Federal action."

(Filing Date: 02-04-2013)

Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder

Immigration: A drug conviction renders an alien ineligible for adjustment of status where the trial court record is inconclusive, and, therefore, the alien is unable to prove “clearly and beyond doubt” that he was convicted of simple possession of a controlled substance.

(Filing Date: 02-01-2013)

United States v. Davis

Remedies: Forfeiture and restitution ordered payable to the government is not double recovery, even if awarded to the same government entity.

(Filing Date: 02-01-2013)

Chappell v. Mandeville

42 USC § 1983: When the law is not clearly established on whether a contraband watch violates the Eighth Amendment, such that it fails to provide adequate notice to prison officials regarding the constitutionality of their actions, the prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity.

(Filing Date: 01-31-2013)

United States v. Doe

Criminal Law: When asserting the affirmative defense of public authority, the defendant bears the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence where the crime requires that the defendant acted “knowingly.”

(Filing Date: 01-31-2013)

Kramer v. Toyota Motor Corp.

Arbitration: Signatory and nonsignatory entities in a contract are presumptively not in agreement to arbitrate arbitrability if the contract does not specifically include nonsignatory entities in the signatories’ agreement to arbitrate arbitrability.

(Filing Date: 01-30-2013)

United States v. Jesus-Casteneda

Evidence: “A confidential informant’s testimony at trial in a wig-and-mustache disguise did not violate the Confrontation Clause, where the disguise was necessary to further the witness’s safety and the reliability of his testimony was otherwise assured.”

(Filing Date: 01-30-2013)

Barragan-Lopez v. Holder

Immigration: Using a hostage to shield oneself from arrest is considered a violent crime, and thus is a deportable offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).

(Filing Date: 01-29-2013)

Carrillo de Palacios v. Holder

Immigration: "Aliens who are inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I)-(II) are ineligible for adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i)."

(Filing Date: 01-28-2013)

Dichter-Mad Family Partners v. United States

Sovereign Immunity: “[D]ecisions of whether and how to conduct investigations and enforcement actions are firmly lodged in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s discretion,” and are exempted from judicial review under the "discretionary function exception" (28 U.S.C. § 2680(a)) to the Federal Tort Claims Act.

(Filing Date: 01-28-2013)

Mattel v. MGA Entertainment

Civil Procedure: Where a counterclaim is based on chicanery by the opposing party’s employees, who were not involved with the facts of the original claim, the counterclaim is not compulsory.

(Filing Date: 01-24-2013)

Thompson v. Runnels

Habeas Corpus: For habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the correct law to be applied is the “clearly established Federal law” at the time of the final state adjudication, and not law created after the state decision.

(Filing Date: 01-24-2013)

Alaska Survival v. Surface Transp. Bd.

Environmental Law: The Surface Transportation Board's ("STB") grant of an exemption under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act ("ICCTA") to the Alaska Railroad Corporation ("ARRC") to build a rail line did not violate the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 ("NEPA") or the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") because STB "thought hard" when it adopted the purpose and need statement which addressed ARRC's goals; STB considered "reasonable" alternatives to the project; and STB engaged in "thoughtful discussion" when it assessed the mitigation measures that ARRC must employ in order to build the rail line.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2013)

Alphonsus v. Holder

Immigration: The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) must explain its basis for using the “orderly pursuit of justice” and “meaningful risk of harm” rationales in determining that an individual committed a particularly serious crime before the BIA’s determination can be evaluated for its legal adequacy.

(Filing Date: 01-18-2013)

Hurles v. Ryan

Habeas Corpus: A petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in a state court post-conviction relief (PCR) claim of judicial bias when the judge who presided over the trial, sentencing, and PCR hearing "makes factual findings [in the PCR case] without an evidentiary hearing or other opportunity for the petitioner to present evidence."

(Filing Date: 01-18-2013)

United States v. Zepeda

Indian Law: Stipulation of a Tribal Enrollment Certificate was insufficient evidence to establish the defendant’s Indian status for purposes of the defendant’s conviction under the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153, which grants federal jurisdiction over enumerated crimes committed by Indians in Indian country.

(Filing Date: 01-18-2013)

Faulkner v. ADT Security Services, Inc.

Civil Procedure: Stipulation of a Tribal Enrollment Certificate was insufficient evidence to establish the defendant’s Indian status for purposes of the defendant’s conviction under the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153, which grants federal jurisdiction over enumerated crimes committed by Indians in Indian country.

(Filing Date: 01-17-2013)

Furnace v. Sullivan

42 USC § 1983: At summary judgment, all inferences must be drawn in favor of the plaintiff when determining qualified immunity for purposes of an Eighth Amendment analysis in a § 1983 claim.

(Filing Date: 01-17-2013)

United States v. Gallegos-Galindo

Sentencing: The 2008 Revised Code of Washington § 9A.44.060(1)(a) includes any sex offense involving the absence of the victim’s consent as a “forcible sex offense.” A third-degree rape conviction is considered a “forcible sex offense” and can be considered during sentencing of a future crime, even if the rape occurred before Amendment 722 was enacted.

(Filing Date: 01-17-2013)

United States v. Vidal-Mendoza

Immigration: Under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d), where an alien lacks “apparent eligibility for relief [] at the time of his removal hearing and potentially [becomes] eligible for such relief only through [a] post-removal change law,” the alien may not collaterally attack the removal order on the basis that the IJ failed to inform him of eligibility for such relief.

(Filing Date: 01-15-2013)

Wilson v. CIR

Tax Law: Under 26 U.S.C. § 6015, the Tax Court is permitted to review Innocent Spouse Relief cases de novo and to consider new evidence in making its determination.

(Filing Date: 01-15-2013)

United States v. Hardeman

Criminal Law: The application of 18 U.S.C. § 2260A, which criminalizes committing certain federal offenses while under a legal duty to register as a sex offender, does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, even if the defendant’s registration duty arose retroactively.

(Filing Date: 01-14-2013)

United States v. Jensen

Sentencing: The maximum sentence for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146, failing to appear, is determined by looking to the maximum sentence imposed by the underlying offense and applying that in § 3146 framework.

(Filing Date: 01-14-2013)

Babb v. Lozowsky

Habeas Corpus: In a petition for habeas corpus, where a court determines with reasonable certainty that a jury reached a general verdict of guilt upon a valid theory, an erroneous instruction relating to separate theory of guilt is a harmless error.

(Filing Date: 01-11-2013)

Lawler v. Montblanc North America, LLC

Employment Law: Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, an employee whose disability precludes her presence at the workplace when her presence is an essential job function does not make out a prima facie claim for disability discrimination.

(Filing Date: 01-11-2013)

United States v. El Dorado County

Appellate Procedure: An order suspending a consent decree will not be subject to an interlocutory appeal unless the appealing party can show that it will suffer “serious, perhaps irreparable consequences.”

(Filing Date: 01-11-2013)

DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures

Civil Procedure: An order denying a defendant’s motion to strike state law claims under California’s anti-SLAPP statute is immediately appealable because the statute grants immunity from suit, not merely a defense to liability.

(Filing Date: 01-10-2013)

Stengel v. Medtronic, Inc.

Preemption: A federal-law duty imposed by the Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not preempt a parallel state-law duty of care.

(Filing Date: 01-10-2013)

Castrijon-Garcia v. Holder

Immigration: The court held that simple kidnapping does not involve moral turpitude because under CPC §207(a) it “does not require an intent to injure, actual injury, or a special class of victims.”

(Filing Date: 01-09-2013)

Castrijon-Garcia v. Holder

(Filing Date: 01-09-2013)

United States v. Juvenile Male

Criminal Procedure: The Ninth Circuit joined its sister circuits in not requiring a psychological evaluation for determining whether transfer from juvenile proceedings to adult prosecution is "in the interest of justice." Presuming guilt for the purposes of a transfer decision is not a violation of due process rights.

(Filing Date: 01-09-2013)

United States v. Juvenile Male

(Filing Date: 01-09-2013)

Cunningham v. Wong

Habeas Corpus: It does not amount to interrogation in violation of Miranda for a detective to ask a suspect in custody, “Do you want to talk to an attorney or do you want to talk to me without an attorney?” after a suspect invokes but adds "I will talk to you now until I think I need [an attorney]. I don’t need one present at this time."

(Filing Date: 01-08-2013)

United States v. Olsen

Habeas Corpus: In a trial for the possession of biological toxins, undisclosed evidence refuting an expert witness’s credibility did not fundamentally change the result of the trial, because other “overwhelming” evidence, including extensive internet research concerning biological weapons and terrorism, supported the conviction.

(Filing Date: 01-08-2013)

United States v. Sideman & Bancroft, LLP

Tax Law: A taxpayer's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is not violated where it is established that, before issuing an administrative summons relating to a criminal investigation of that taxpayer, the IRS had independent knowledge of the summonsed documents’ existence and authenticity, and of the respondent’s possession of the documents.

(Filing Date: 01-08-2013)

Jayne v. Sherman

Environmental Law: In preparing an Environmental Impact Statement, the Forest Service did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner when considering commitments by a forest supervisor to protect endangered species after the adoption of a new regulation affecting wilderness management.

(Filing Date: 01-07-2013)

Peralta v. Dillard

42 USC § 1983: The court may instruct the jury to consider the “duties, discretion and means available” to prison employees in determining whether the employee acted with deliberate indifference to a prisoner's medical needs.

(Filing Date: 01-07-2013)

United States v. Juan

Civil Procedure: For a defendant to show a violation of due process under the Fifth Amendment for prosecutorial intimidation of a witness, defendant must show a causal link between the statements and the witness's decision to change her decision.

(Filing Date: 01-07-2013)

Henderson v. Johnson

Habeas Corpus: Where a habeas petition contains both exhausted and unexhausted state habeas claims, a district court should dismiss the petition with leave to amend. If requested, a district court should also consider the petitioner’s eligibility for a stay of the whole petition or unexhausted claims.

(Filing Date: 01-03-2013)

United States v. Xu

Criminal Law: “When a statute gives no clear indication of an extraterritorial application, it has none.” However, there is "express legislative intent to punish patterns of organized criminal activity in the United States" and under RICO, conspiracy convictions are not the result of "improper extraterritorial application" when the pattern of defendants’ criminal enterprise involved both the foreign country and the United States.

(Filing Date: 01-03-2013)

Freeman Investments v. Pacific Life

Civil Law: "[C]lass claims for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing [are] not precluded by SLUSA, even if such claims related to the purchase or sale of a covered security, because these contract claims did not rest on misrepresentation or fraudulent omission."

(Filing Date: 01-02-2013)

In Re: Century Aluminum Co.

Civil Law: Under § 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77k, a plaintiff has a cause of action if she proves that her purchased shares were fraudulently issued under a “materially false or misleading registration statement.”

(Filing Date: 01-02-2013)

United States v. Pleasant

Sentencing: A defendant’s “agreed sentencing range” is not necessarily his “applicable sentencing range.” “The applicable guideline range is determined before consideration of any departure provision in the Guidelines Manual or any variance.”

(Filing Date: 01-02-2013)

United States v. Yi

Criminal Law: A “deliberate ignorance” instruction is appropriate where the evidence establishes “(1) a subjective belief that there is a high probability a fact exists; and (2) deliberate actions taken to avoid learning the truth.”

(Filing Date: 01-02-2013)

Alocozy v. USCIS

Immigration: A waiver of deportation under former INA section 212(c) does not foreclose the government's ability to use a person's conviction when it considers the "unrelated question of fitness for naturalization." Additionally, when determining whether a "new immigration consequence" was created by the retroactive application of the definition of aggravated felony, the Court will look at a person's "settled expectations."

(Filing Date: 12-28-2012)

Rojas v. Holder

Immigration: In determining whether to grant or deny a request for voluntary departure, the Immigration Judge may consider “evidence of bad character or undesirability” in making that discretionary determination.

(Filing Date: 12-28-2012)

Rojas v. Holder

(Filing Date: 12-28-2012)

United States v. Lee

Criminal Law: When a defendant pleads guilty to violating a broad statute with 2 or more offenses, the court must be specific, for the purposes of determining career offender status or other enhanced sentencing designations, which offense was committed.

(Filing Date: 12-28-2012)

Cooper v. Ramos

Post-Conviction Relief: Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, 28 U.S.C. § 1257 vests the power to hear direct appeals from state court judgments to the United States Supreme Court, not to federal district courts. Although the doctrine does not preclude a plaintiff from bringing an “independent claim” that was not the subject of a previous state court judgment, if subsequent claims are “inextricabl[y] intertwined” with a claim the court does not have jurisdiction to hear, the court will also be barred from hearing those subsequent claims.

(Filing Date: 12-27-2012)

Arteaga-De Alvarez v. Holder

Immigration: The Ninth Circuit does not have jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s claim that she did not receive due process because her request for cancellation of removal was denied even though her husband’s cancellation of removal request had been granted based on similar circumstances. The Board of Immigration Appeal (BIA) “committed an error of law” when it relied on a categorical rule that the “availability of alternative relief necessarily undercuts a cancellation of removal claim of hardship to the applicant’s qualifying relative.”

(Filing Date: 12-26-2012)

Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo

Civil Law: Wells Fargo Bank is not entitled to demand arbitration on appeal for a customer class action suit challenging the bank’s high-to-low debit card posting scheme under California’s Unfair Competition Law as “unfair” and “fraudulent.” National banking laws preempt California state law regarding the unfairness of a bank's posting scheme, but not any fraudulent misrepresentations made about it to customers.

(Filing Date: 12-26-2012)

Redoil v. EPA

Environmental Law: The Clean Air Act is ambiguous regarding whether best available control technology applies to support vessels; as a result, an Environmental Appeals Board interpretation of the statute deserves deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc.

(Filing Date: 12-26-2012)

Sanchez v. Holder

Immigration: Since the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to immigration hearings, the proper standard for admitting evidence is "whether the evidence is probative and its admission is fundamentally fair." Where an appellant claims a translation of her statements is inaccurate, but does not offer a corrected translation of the statements, the statements are admissible.

(Filing Date: 12-26-2012)

United States v. Phillips

Parole and Post-Prison Supervision: The prohibition on “frequent[ing] places” utilized in the trade or use of illegal drugs prohibits a person from “knowingly going to a specific place where drugs are illegally used or sold,” but not incidental contact with a “neighborhood simply because a person is selling drugs somewhere within that neighborhood.”

(Filing Date: 12-26-2012)

In Re: VeriFone Holdings

Civil Law: Under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, pleadings are adequate if, viewed holistically, the inference that a company was deliberately reckless in the manipulation of its financial statements is "at least as compelling as any opposing inference."

(Filing Date: 12-21-2012)

Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America

Constitutional Law: A city’s lease of land for one dollar per year to the Boy Scouts of America does not violate the California Constitution, because the leases are “indirect or incidental” aid by the city for a religious purpose, and the city’s lack of involvement does not amount to entanglement such that the leases would violate the California No Preference Clause or state or federal Establishment Clauses.

(Filing Date: 12-20-2012)

United States v. Valdavinos-Torres

Criminal Law: Possession of a controlled substance for sale under state law is a deportable offense under federal law where the conviction record, including the indictment, the plea agreement, the transcript of the plea proceeding, minute entry, or the judgment, indicates the substance is a controlled substance under federal law.

(Filing Date: 12-20-2012)

United States v. Yepez

Criminal Law: A defendant whose state criminal sentence was retroactively terminated is not eligible for safety valve sentencing relief.

(Filing Date: 12-20-2012)

Metro One v. CIR

Tax Law: § 56’s Relief Rule does not allow a taxpayer subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax to offset upwards of 100% of a taxpayer’s income with net operating losses, because the term “carryovers” as used in § 56(d)(1) refers only to “carryforwards.” Thus, taxpayers are not able to use net operating losses carried back to 2001 or 2002 from later tax years under the Relief Rule.

(Filing Date: 12-19-2012)

United States v. Bustos-Ochoa

Immigration: An alien cannot challenge his initial removal order as fundamentally unfair based on the fact that the immigration judge did not advise him on relief for which he was not eligible.

(Filing Date: 12-18-2012)

Washington Shoe v. A-Z Sporting Goods

Civil Procedure: Under the Calder test, personal jurisdiction is established against a non-resident defendant where the defendant knowingly engaged in copyright infringement knowing that the harm would impact a plaintiff in Washington State.

(Filing Date: 12-17-2012)

Managed Pharmacy Care v. Sebelius

Administrative Law: Congress expressly granted the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to reasonably decide under federal law the reimbursement rate that states may set in managing their Medicaid programs.

(Filing Date: 12-13-2012)

Loftis v. Almager

Habeas Corpus: Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, if a defendant pleads no contest, making reference to People v. West during the plea colloquy does not trigger the factual basis requirements of North Carolina v. Alford .

(Filing Date: 12-11-2012)

Medrano v. Flagstar Bank

Civil Law: A mortgage-loan servicer's duty to respond under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605, is not triggered unless the borrower includes her name and account information, the reasons the borrower believes the account is in error, and a request for information regarding the service of the loan.

(Filing Date: 12-11-2012)

United States v. Simard

Constitutional Law: In granting a motion to strike a claim in a civil forfeiture proceeding, the district court errs when it applies the standard of proof for a possessory interest, rather than an ownership interest; therefore, an “unequivocal assertion of an ownership interest in the property is sufficient to establish standing.”

(Filing Date: 12-10-2012)

Ortiz v. Yates

Evidence: The trial court's ruling that denied the petitioner the opportunity to cross-examine his wife regarding what she perceived to be a threat from the prosecutor violated the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.

(Filing Date: 12-06-2012)

United States v. Keyser

Criminal Law: The mailing of sugar packets labeled “Anthrax” constitutes a true threat and, therefore, is not protected by the First Amendment; likewise, hoax speech is not entitled to First Amendment protection, because “false and misleading information indicating an act of terrorism tends to incite a tangible negative response by law enforcement, emergency workers, and citizens.”

(Filing Date: 12-06-2012)

Coles v. Eagle

Criminal Procedure: Claims of excessive force are reviewed using the reasonableness standard under the Fourth Amendment. In determining whether the force was reasonable, the court balances the "nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake."

(Filing Date: 12-05-2012)

United States v. Harris

Criminal Law: 49 U.S.C. § 46505’s prohibition of “dangerous weapons” on an aircraft is “sufficiently clear to provide guidance to citizens concerning how they can avoid violating it” and to place a defendant on notice that his conduct was criminal to survive an as-applied vagueness challenge.

(Filing Date: 12-05-2012)

United States v. Hernandez-Estrada

Criminal Law: To successfully plead violations of the Jury Selection Service Act of 1968, a plaintiff must show a substantial interference with the "Act's key goals of randomness and objectivity."

(Filing Date: 12-05-2012)

In Re: Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc.

Bankruptcy Law: Under 28 U.S.C. § 157, a non-Article III bankruptcy judge has constitutional authority to hear and enter proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in a fraudulent conveyance proceeding asserted by a bankruptcy trustee against a noncreditor, but entering a final judgment is left to the federal district court.

(Filing Date: 12-04-2012)

Martinez v. Napolitano

Immigration: 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) prohibits Administrative Procedure Act claims that indirectly challenge the removal of an alien since the petition for review process is the exclusive means to challenge an order of removal.

(Filing Date: 12-03-2012)

Pechenkov v. Holder

Immigration: 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(a)(2) is constitutional because it simply implements Congress's intent as expressed under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(c)(2) that an alien who has been granted asylum may have that status revoked after committing a serious crime, regardless of an application for withholding of removal.

(Filing Date: 12-03-2012)

Sims v. Stanton

42 USC § 1983: To have a qualified immunity in depriving someone of their 4th amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure within the curtilage of their home, the officer must either be chasing someone who is suspected of a felony violation or is presently a violent threat to the community or the officer.

(Filing Date: 12-03-2012)

United States v. Arias-Espinosa

Criminal Procedure: A court's ambiguous statement that a defendant "may have a right to appeal" does not invalidate the defendant's prior written waiver of appeal.

(Filing Date: 11-30-2012)

United States v. I.E.V

Criminal Procedure: A Terry frisk is not justified at its inception and therefore unconstitutional when it is a general exploratory search for evidence and when it is based on the nervous behavior of someone other than the defendant. Furthermore, a search unconstitutionally exceeds the scope of a Terry frisk when the "incriminating character of the object [is] not immediately apparent."

(Filing Date: 11-28-2012)

United States v. Munguia

Criminal Procedure: A trial court’s jury instruction to use a hypothetical reasonable person standard to evaluate “reasonable cause to believe,” when a subjective standard from the defendant’s perspective is proper, is not harmless error and, therefore, warrants reversal of a conviction.

(Filing Date: 11-27-2012)

United States v. Wahchumwah

Criminal Procedure: When an undercover agent is invited into the home by a suspect, the warrantless use of a concealed audio-video recording device does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

(Filing Date: 11-27-2012)

Mount Hope Church v. Bash Back!

Civil Procedure: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(1) “cannot properly support a sanction where the cost of complying with the subpoena is minimal and there is no showing that the subpoena was facially defective or issued in bad faith.”

(Filing Date: 11-26-2012)

United States v. Scott

Appellate Procedure: Despite the lack of a timely written response to a motion to suppress, the government’s oral argument and written response to the magistrate judge’s recommendation preserve its automobile exception argument for appeal.

(Filing Date: 11-26-2012)

Pouncil v. Tilton

Civil Law: A plaintiff’s 2008 claims under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and the First Amendment, founded upon the denial of his requests for a conjugal visit with his wife, were based on an independent act, and therefore were not time-barred and “pursuant to the same regulation” of his previously denied request for a conjugal visit in 2002.

(Filing Date: 11-21-2012)

Stephens v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board

Disability Law: The Railroad Retirement Board erred when it denied the petitioner disability benefits based on his history of employment, because short-lived, unsuccessful attempts at employment after the age of 22 only create a presumption that the child of a railroad worker under the Railroad Retirement Act is not eligible for disability benefits.

(Filing Date: 11-21-2012)

United States v. Manning

Sentencing: “Attempting” to obstruct justice through false statements, which “if believed would influence or affect the investigation,” amounts to obstruction of justice for purposes of U.S. Sentencing Guideline § 3C1.1, even if the defendant later rescinds those statements.

(Filing Date: 11-21-2012)

United States v. Wiggan

Evidence: A Grand Juror may testify to the materiality of a defendant's testimony and to the physical arrangement of the Grand Jury room. However, if the testimony addresses the Grand Jury's opinion on the defendant's credibility, its probative value is outweighed by its prejudicial effect and it must not be admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 analysis.

(Filing Date: 11-20-2012)

Slater v. Clarke

Sovereign Immunity: Government officials are entitled to absolute immunity for their participation in extradition decisions as these decisions are, “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.”

(Filing Date: 11-19-2012)

United States v. Catalan

Sentencing: "The Sentencing Commission recently clarified that a probation revocation sentence served after deportation should not be used to calculate the “sentence imposed” under section 2L1.2(b)(1)" of the US Sentencing Guidelines, so the Court retroactively applied the amendment and vacated Catalan's sentence that had been determined by including the probation revocation sentence served after his deportation.

(Filing Date: 11-19-2012)

United States v. Oseguera-Madrigal

Immigration: An immigration judge violates an alien’s due process rights when he fails to advise the alien of apparent eligibility for relief through a waiver of inadmissibility when the failure to advised is accompanied with prejudice; however, there is no prejudice where the alien is not eligible for the waiver.

(Filing Date: 11-19-2012)

Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc.

Evidence: A litigant is entitled to a new trial when a district court fails to hold a Daubert hearing or otherwise determine the reliability of expert testimony before allowing that testimony over an objection.

(Filing Date: 11-16-2012)

Wagner v. Maricopa County

Evidence: Expert witness testimony that is an opinion based on the propriety of a defendant’s action is a question for the jury to determine, not for the court acting as gatekeeper.

(Filing Date: 11-16-2012)

Aloe Vera of America, Inc. v. United States

Tax Law: The two-year statute of limitations for a taxpayer’s §7431(a) claim only begins to run when the taxpayer is on inquiry notice from “actual or constructive knowledge” of each disclosure of return information. Additionally, the §7431(b) immunity afforded for good faith mistakes of disclosure does not protect the government from knowingly false releases of information.

(Filing Date: 11-15-2012)

In re: Scholz

Bankruptcy Law: The use of “anticipated” in the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 has a trust law meaning, and annuities under such act are included in calculating projected disposable income for purposes of Chapter 13 bankruptcy plans.

(Filing Date: 11-15-2012)

United States v. Maloney

Criminal Procedure: Deference is given to trial courts in determining a juror's impartiality and the jury instructions, and a high level of deference is given to a court's decision whether or not closing arguments are proper.

(Filing Date: 11-14-2012)

Miller v. Wright

Indian Law: Entering into and complying with the legal requirements of a state contract does not amount to waiver of an Indian Tribe's sovereign immunity.

(Filing Date: 11-13-2012)

Carrera v. Ayers

Habeas Corpus: A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to make a Wheeler objection, in 1990, can only be met if the defendant shows that there was a prima facie case for unlawful discrimination and shows that "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different."

(Filing Date: 11-06-2012)

United States v. Zamorano-Ponce

Sentencing: Federally defined "statutory rape" is a "crime of violence" for the purposes of sentencing and "16-Level Enhancement" under U.S.S.G.§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). To determine whether a specific State crime qualifies as "statutory rape" for these purposes, the Court compares the State and Federal definitions, examining in particular the "full scope of the conduct" the State law prohibits.

(Filing Date: 11-06-2012)

Akhtar v. Mesa

42 USC § 1983: In a civil rights case, a prisoner's pro se status requires courts to explain deficiencies in the prisoner's complaint and allow leave to amend before dismissal with prejudice.

(Filing Date: 11-05-2012)

Parrish v. Commissioner SSA

Attorney Fees: For the purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act savings provision (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412, a court properly offsets all EAJA attorney's fee awards, against all Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) awards, because an attorney who represents, at all stages, a claimant for past-due Social Security benefits has “receive[d] fees for the same work.”

(Filing Date: 11-05-2012)

United States v. Johnson

Parole and Post-Prison Supervision: A court may impose a condition on supervised release for convictions that include similar factors or aspects from a defendant’s prior convictions if such a condition would protect the public and help to rehabilitate the defendant.

(Filing Date: 10-30-2012)

Laurel Park Community v. City of Tumwater

Constitutional Law: A zoning ordinance limiting the uses of manufactured home parks that has a negligible effect on property values and provides owners with reasonable alternative uses does not constitute a taking, nor does it violate substantive due process.

(Filing Date: 10-29-2012)

Stankewitz v. Wong

Habeas Corpus: The district court does not err in granting a petition for writ of habeas corpus where the state fails to rebut the petitioner’s allegations that his counsel failed to investigate and present readily available mitigation evidence that, if true, would establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

(Filing Date: 10-29-2012)

United States v. Aguilar-Vera

Criminal Procedure: The sentencing process violates Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b)(2) if the presiding judicial officer does not address the defendant individually to determine whether the plea is being entered voluntarily. However, if that violation does not substantially affect the defendant's rights, the error is harmless.

(Filing Date: 10-29-2012)

In re Amy & Vicky

Remedies: The Ninth Circuit will not reconsider its prior interpretation of the Crime Victims Rights Act, denying restitution to child pornography victims where no causal connection between the defendant’s offense and the victim’s specific losses exists, absent higher authority from the Ninth Circuit en banc or the U.S. Supreme Court.

(Filing Date: 10-24-2012)

Doe #1 v. Reed

Constitutional Law: When no effective relief can be granted and it could reasonably be determined that the controversy could be fully litigated before becoming moot, the case is dismissed as moot.

(Filing Date: 10-23-2012)

OSU Student Alliance v. Ray

42 USC § 1983: Under 42 U.S.C. §1983, a plaintiff adequately alleges First and Fourteenth Amendment violations by claiming that a supervisor knowingly acquiesced to violations of students' free speech rights by an immediate subordinate.

(Filing Date: 10-23-2012)

Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc.

42 USC § 1983: Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a claim against a private casino is not frivolous where the casino acted under color of state law by arresting the plaintiff for trespass, because the casino could be considered a state actor.

(Filing Date: 10-23-2012)

United States v. Wolf Child

Sentencing: When a sentencing condition implicates a recognized fundamental liberty interest the court must apply enhanced procedures involving an individualized assessment to ensure that the condition applied is reasonable in its deterrent value and is not overly broad. Furthermore, this enhanced procedure must be made part of the record.

(Filing Date: 10-23-2012)

Center for Biological Diversity v. BLM

Administrative Law: The court held that the Biological Opinion was arbitrary and capricious because it relied on the beneficial effects of the Conservation Action Plan which was not incorporated as part of the proposed project and because the Fish and Wildlife Services acted unreasonably when it failed to examine the impact from groundwater withdrawals which is a “relevant factor” in the jeopardy determination of endangered species.

(Filing Date: 10-22-2012)

Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder

Immigration: If a prior ruling of the Ninth Circuit conflicts with a reasonable interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA), the Ninth Circuit will defer to the BIA’s interpretation, which can be retroactively applied.

(Filing Date: 10-19-2012)

Chesbro v. Best Buy Stores

Civil Law: An automated phone call from a consumer products company urging the listener to redeem customer rewards points that require future purchases falls within the scope of “unsolicited advertisement,” prohibited by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Washington Automatic Dialing and Announcing Device Act.

(Filing Date: 10-17-2012)

Evergreen Safety Council v. RSA Network

Copyright: In a copyright action, when a defendant operates under color of title and a reasonable belief in free use, a willful infringement copyright claim may be barred by laches.

(Filing Date: 10-17-2012)

Lambright v. Ryan

Evidence: The district court abused its discretion by finding that a protective order in a federal habeas proceeding for ineffective counsel should not apply retroactively and that petitioner waived attorney client privilege to materials produced at an evidentiary hearing because he did not ask them to be sealed; the district court did not abuse its discretion by modifying the protective order to allow for disclosure for non-privileged material at resentencing.

(Filing Date: 10-17-2012)

United States v. Peppers

Criminal Law: If jury instructions fairly and adequately covers the issues presented, the district court is given substantial latitude in tailoring jury instructions.

(Filing Date: 10-17-2012)

Alcoa, Inc. v. BPA

Administrative Law: Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)’s decision to set the rate at which it sold power to Alcoa Inc., to create an Equivalent Benefits standard that it applied to the Alcoa contract, and not to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), was not arbitrary and capricious, because BPA "considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made."

(Filing Date: 10-16-2012)

Lair v. Bullock

Civil Procedure: A stay of a district court order is appropriate under the four Nken factors when an appellate court has previously ruled on a “virtually indistinguishable” challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute, and the only intervening circumstance is a Supreme Court opinion that lacks both a majority opinion and concurring opinions decided under a consistent rationale.

(Filing Date: 10-16-2012)

Charles v. City of Los Angeles

First Amendment: A billboard advertising a particular product and proposing a commercial transaction is commercial speech, and the fact that the billboard advertises protected expressive speech does not change its commercial-speech status.

(Filing Date: 10-15-2012)

Dex Media West, Inc. v. Seattle

First Amendment: Mixed-content publications like phone books are entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment; the commercial aspect and underlying financial motive of the publishers is not enough to classify such publications as strictly commercial speech and subject them to a lesser level of protection.

(Filing Date: 10-15-2012)

Meyers v. Portfolio Recovery

Civil Law: Consumers who provide creditors with cellular telephone numbers subsequent to the original transaction that resulted in the debt at issue have not consented to be contacted at those numbers by creditors per the requirements of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227.

(Filing Date: 10-12-2012)

United States v. James Jackson

Sentencing: A district court does not plainly err in applying the plain language of U.S.S.G. § 2G1.3(b)(3)(B), which provides for a use-of-computer enhancement, because a district court could reasonably find that the plain language of the Guideline is inconsistent with the Application Note that follows it.

(Filing Date: 10-11-2012)

United States v. Valencia-Riascos

Evidence: When a defendant has made an FRE 615 request to exclude an investigative official who is both a witness and victim in the prosecution's case, the court may deny the defendant's request by finding that the investigative official is either a case agent permitted to be present according to FRE 615(b), or the individual is authorized under FRE 615(d) by the Crime Victims' Rights Act to be present in the courtroom despite an FRE 615 objection.

(Filing Date: 10-11-2012)

Delgado-Hernandez v. Holder

Immigration: Ordinary kidnapping under California Penal Code § 207(a) “is a crime of violence because it results in a substantial risk of force.”

(Filing Date: 10-09-2012)

Western Watersheds Project v. Ellis

Attorney Fees: Denial of attorney fees is not an abuse of discretion if the court considered both the reasonableness of the administrative decision and the reasonableness of the litigation.

(Filing Date: 10-09-2012)

Ruiz-Diaz v. U.S.

Immigration: The restriction on non-citizens filing an adjustment of status application concurrently with an employer’s petition for a religious worker visa does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), nor is it unconstitutional under Equal Protection or Due Process.

(Filing Date: 10-05-2012)

United States v. Budziak

Criminal Law: Allowing other users of a peer-to-peer network to access a shared file that contains child pornography is sufficient evidence to constitute distribution of child pornography under 18 U.S.C § 2252(a)(2).

(Filing Date: 10-05-2012)

United States v. Elk Shoulder

Constitutional Law: Congress acted within its enumerated powers, derived from its authority to ensure public safety under the Necessary and Proper Clause, when it enacted the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.

(Filing Date: 10-05-2012)

United States v. Jones

Sentencing: State recidivism enhancements may be considered under federal sentencing guidelines when determining felony convictions in supervised release revocation proceedings, even if the violation would be considered a misdemeanor without the recidivism enhancements.

(Filing Date: 10-05-2012)

United States v. Mendez-Gonzalez

Sentencing: When a plea agreement includes a waiver to appeal a sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3742, a defendant may not appeal a supervised release condition because the word "sentence" includes supervised release as well as prison time.

(Filing Date: 10-05-2012)

United States v. Nungaray

Sentencing: At a sentencing hearing, a district court may find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an individual had constructive possession of firearms when that individual organized, facilitated, and was present at the sale of those firearms. Such a finding will result in an increased sentencing level per U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A).

(Filing Date: 10-05-2012)

Ridore v. Holder

Immigration: The Board of Immigration Appeals cannot disregard an Immigration Judge’s factual findings and substitute its own view of the facts. The BIA must either find clear error in the IJ’s factfinding, with an explanation of why; or, if critical facts are missing, it may remand to the IJ.

(Filing Date: 10-03-2012)

United States Aviation Underwriters v. Nabtesco

Civil Law: The eighteen-year statue of ultimate repose under § 2(a)(1)(A) of the General Aviation Revitalization Act "commences with the delivery date of the used part to its first purchaser."

(Filing Date: 10-02-2012)

Cudjo v. Ayers

Criminal Procedure: Chambers v. Mississippi “clearly establishe[s] that the exclusion of trustworthy and necessary exculpatory testimony at trial violates a defendant’s due process right to present a defense.”

(Filing Date: 09-28-2012)

Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.

Civil Procedure: A federal district court has the power to enjoin the parties from proceeding with an action in the courts of a foreign country, and evaluating the propriety of the foreign anti-suit injunction involves a three-part inquiry.

(Filing Date: 09-28-2012)

Miles v. Martel

Criminal Procedure: Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), a federal court can remand a claim of a person in state custody for an evidentiary hearing for the purpose of reviewing that claim.

(Filing Date: 09-28-2012)

United States v. HOS

Juvenile Law: Upon remand from the appeal of a transfer to adult criminal court, a district court may re-litigate the issue of a defendant's age.

(Filing Date: 09-28-2012)

De Osorio v. Mayorkas

Immigration: The Child Status Protection Act grants automatic conversion and priority date retention to all “aged-out” derivative beneficiaries, regardless of whether a change in petitioner occurs.

(Filing Date: 09-26-2012)

Public Lands for the People v. USDA

Administrative Law: Pursuant to the Organic Administration Act of 1987, the U.S. Forest Service is within its authority in redefining public roads to limit the use of motor vehicle traffic on forest land.

(Filing Date: 09-26-2012)

Sachs v. Republic of Austria

Sovereign Immunity: To overcome the presumption that a foreign state is entitled to separate juridical status under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1602, a claimant must show that the foreign state had a “day-to-day, routine involvement” over the affairs of the individual or corporation.

(Filing Date: 09-26-2012)

Holmes v. Merck & Co., Inc.

Tort Law: Under Section 22 of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, parents of children injured by a vaccine cannot sue for design defect or failure to warn.

(Filing Date: 09-25-2012)

Melendres v. Arpaio

Constitutional Law: Plaintiffs had standing to pursue equitable relief against defendants, the Sheriff and Sheriff’s Office of Maricopa County, based on Fourth Amendment violations and the district court did not err when it granted plaintiffs’ partial injunctive relief, enjoining defendants from detaining individuals based solely on a knowledge or a reasonable belief that they are unlawfully present in the country.

(Filing Date: 09-25-2012)

Hall v. City of Los Angeles

42 USC § 1983: Where a plaintiff is convicted of a murder he did not commit, solely on the basis of a coerced confession, and serves nineteen years in prison, but fails to include an explicit Fifth Amendment claim despite alleging sufficient facts to support such a claim, it is manifestly unjust to deny leave to amend the complaint.

(Filing Date: 09-24-2012)

Albino v. Baca

Administrative Law: In order for an inmate to claim unawareness of a grievance procedure, which would render the procedure effectively unavailable, the inmate must make an objective showing the procedure was unknown or could not be known with reasonable effort.

(Filing Date: 09-21-2012)

Native Ecosystems Council v. Weldon

Environmental Law: The United States Forest Service took the "hard look" required by the National Environmental Policy Act and considered the "relevant factors" required by the National Forest Management Act when it used photo interpretation methodology to analyze the effects of the Ettien Ridge Fuels Reduction Project on the elk hiding cover and goshawk population.

(Filing Date: 09-21-2012)

Native Village of Kivalina v. ExxonMobil

Civil Procedure: Where Congress has displaced a cause of action under the federal common law, displacement extends to all potential remedies. The Clean Air Act displaces the federal common law cause of action for nuisance caused by the emission of green house gases.

(Filing Date: 09-21-2012)

Earth Island Institute v. USFS

Environmental Law: The “1982 Rule,” requiring monitoring of species viability, was not incorporated into the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Forest Plan (“LTBMU”) at the project level; therefore, the Forest Service is not required to conduct a project level analysis of the “quantity and quality of habitat necessary” to support specific species in the LTBMU, as this analysis is habitat monitoring.

(Filing Date: 09-20-2012)

Keller Foundation v. Tracy

Workers Compensation: The Court held that when a worker is injured overseas, he is not eligible for workers' compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, because work overseas does not satisfy the status and situs tests, which include that the injury must take place in the navigable waters of the United States.

(Filing Date: 09-20-2012)

McCall v. Facebook, Inc.

Civil Procedure: Under FRCP 23(e), a cy pres class action settlement is fair where individual recovery would be de minimus , and the funds go to create an advocacy group whose articles of incorporation demonstrate an adequate nexus to the plaintiffs’ interests, even if an employee of the defendant is a member of the advocacy group’s board of directors.

(Filing Date: 09-20-2012)

United States v. Anekwu

Criminal Procedure: Under the Confrontation Clause, it is not plain error to allow certificates of authentication for foreign public and business records by affidavit.

(Filing Date: 09-20-2012)

Stratton v. Buck

Civil Procedure: Pro se prisoner plaintiffs have a substantial right to notice on a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies when the district court is considering matters outside the pleadings; a plaintiff is entitled to notice similar to that required by Rand on motions for summary judgment.

(Filing Date: 09-19-2012)

Montes-Lopez v. Holder

Immigration: An alien denied his statutory right to counsel during an immigration proceeding does not need to show "he was prejudiced by the absence of the attorney."

(Filing Date: 09-18-2012)

Rogovich v. Ryan

Habeas Corpus: “No clearly established federal law requir[es] the defendant to consent on the record to an insanity defense.”

(Filing Date: 09-18-2012)

Terenkian v. Republic of Iraq

Civil Procedure: Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, for a “commercial activity” immunity exception to thrive, it must be based on a legally significant commercial act that occurred in the United States or an act that had a direct and legally significant effect in the U.S.

(Filing Date: 09-18-2012)

United States v. Lukashov

Criminal Procedure: When the jury receives a proper instruction on venue but only reaches a verdict on the substantive aspects of the case, the trial court may decide venue as a matter of law if the jury could not have reached its verdict without concluding that venue exists by a preponderance of the evidence.

(Filing Date: 09-18-2012)

Bates v. Mortgage Electronic Registration

Civil Procedure: Under the California False Claims Act, the “public disclosure” exception will bar a claim if the party’s allegations are substantially similar to information already in the public domain. To be an “original source,” the party must show that it was his information that provided the basis or catalyst for the investigation, hearing, audit, or report that led to the public disclosure.

(Filing Date: 09-17-2012)

Sanders Cnty. Republican Cent. Comm. v. Bullock

First Amendment: Under the strict scrutiny standard, preventing political parties from endorsing a judicial candidate is not a necessary prerequisite to the compelling interest of maintaining a fair and independent judiciary.

(Filing Date: 09-17-2012)

United States v. Mattix

Criminal Law: Under United States v. Valverde , 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a) applies retroactively to a sex offender who fails to register after August 1, 2008.

(Filing Date: 09-17-2012)

Young v. Holder

Immigration: Under the modified categorical approach, a guilty plea to a conjunctive count that alleges several theories of a crime establishes a conviction under at least one theory, but not necessarily all, of those theories. Further, “[a]n alien cannot carry the burden of demonstrating eligibility for cancellation of removal by merely establishing that the relevant record of conviction is inconclusive as to whether the conviction is for an aggravated felony.”

(Filing Date: 09-17-2012)

Gonzaga-Ortega v. Holder

Immigration: A final administrative determination that a lawful permanent resident (“LPR”) “engaged in illegal activity” while outside the United States is not required for Border officers to treat the LPR as an “applicant for admission,” and thus as not entitled to counsel during primary or secondary inspection.

(Filing Date: 09-14-2012)

United States v. Leal-Del Carmen

Criminal Procedure: The government may not unilaterally deport an illegal alien who it knows can provide exculpatory evidence for a defendant before counsel has been appointed for that defendant.

(Filing Date: 09-14-2012)

Maxwell v. County of San Diego

Constitutional Law: Law enforcement officials can be held liable for constitutional violations if they leave a victim in a more dangerous situation than that in which they found her and if the detention of witnesses is more than minimally intrusive.

(Filing Date: 09-13-2012)

United States v. Burke

Criminal Law: Supervised release in a residential reentry center is not sufficient to satisfy the meaning of "custody" for purposes of charging a defendant with escaping from custody under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a).

(Filing Date: 09-13-2012)

Sheppard v. Evans and Assoc.

Civil Procedure: The Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8(a)(2)’s pleading standard can be satisfied for a complaint of wrongful discharge under Oregon law and age discrimination based on circumstantial evidence if the complaint establishes a prima facie case of age discrimination and alleges that the plaintiff was fired after requesting Family Medical Leave.

(Filing Date: 09-12-2012)

Stephan v. Unum Life Insurance

Appellate Procedure: An abuse of discretion standard is proper if its use was predetermined in a settlement agreement and the disputed policy was in effect at the time of the settlement.

(Filing Date: 09-12-2012)

United States v. Nielsen

Sentencing: A juvenile adjudication for sexual assault does not constitute a “conviction” for purposes of applying the “repeat and dangerous sex offender against minors” enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5(a).

(Filing Date: 09-12-2012)

United States v. USDC– Northern Mariana Is.

Civil Procedure: Where the district court fails to make a factual finding showing the case’s unique circumstances, the court abuses its discretion in ordering the attendance of a government representative with full settlement authority at an initial settlement conference.

(Filing Date: 09-12-2012)

Eche v. Holder

Immigration: A lawful permanent resident’s time residing in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands before 2009, when federal immigration law became effective, does not count toward the five-year residency requirement for naturalization.

(Filing Date: 09-11-2012)

Glendale v. United States

Indian Law: The Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act acreage cap applies only to land held in trust, not on total land acquisition by the tribe. Second, the phrase "within the corporate limits" is based on the jurisdictional nature of fee land and makes property eligible under the Act if it is on the unincorporated side of the city’s boundary line.

(Filing Date: 09-11-2012)

Marquez v. City of Phoenix

Criminal Procedure: Police do not violate the Fourth Amendment by repeatedly using a taser on a suspect when the suspect has his granddaughter in a chokehold, is combative with police, and there are other victims present. Under Arizona law, there is no claim for wrongful death where police acted reasonably in the use of force, which they did here.

(Filing Date: 09-11-2012)

McCormack v. Hiedeman

Civil Procedure: The Court affirms the district court's decision that McCormack will likely succeed on the merits of her case, in which she argues that that Idaho Code § 18-606 violates various provisions of the United States Constitution, but reverses its decision to limit the scope of the preliminary injuction issued to Hiedeman, preventing his enforcement of Idaho Code §§ 18-606 and 18-608(1), to just McCormack. The Court holds that McCormack did have standing to enjoin enforcement of Idaho Code § 18-608(2) in conjunction with § 18-606 but does not having standing to seek pre-enforcement relief against the enforcement of Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

(Filing Date: 09-11-2012)

Palomar Medical Center v. Sebelius

Appellate Procedure: Under the congressionally mandated Recovery Audit Contractor program, a decision regarding whether or not to reopen a case for overpayments to Medicare providers are final. They cannot be challenged after an audit and revised determination.

(Filing Date: 09-11-2012)

Hibbler v. Benedetti

Habeas Corpus: When reviewing a decision denying an evidentiary hearing, the Court must determine whether the decision was supported by the record. Furthermore, counsel will not be deemed ineffective if the Court determines that counsel acted objectively reasonable given the circumstances. Both conditions are satisfied, as to the competence of a defendant, when a psychiatric evaluator has found the defendant competent to stand trial.

(Filing Date: 09-10-2012)

Mueller v. City of Boise

Family Law: A police officer may remove a child from parental care without a court order in situations where the child is in “imminent danger,” and that danger is determined from an objectively reasonable standpoint, which may be based on the opinion of a physician.

(Filing Date: 09-10-2012)

Pacific Coast Federation v. Blank

Administrative Law: The National Marine Fisheries Services complied with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act provisions because those provisions did not require it to develop criteria for allocating fishing privileges or to restrict privileges to only those who substantially participate. The National Marine Fisheries Services also complied with the National Environmental Policy Act by adopting flexible mitigation measures in accordance with separate studies conducted to lessen the potential adverse effect on fishing communities.

(Filing Date: 09-10-2012)

Schmidt v. Contra Costa County

42 USC § 1983: Judges receive legislative immunity for setting subordinate judicial officer qualifications when the qualifications apply to a broad group, are formally adopted, and bear other traditional hallmarks of legislation.

(Filing Date: 09-10-2012)

Wood v. Ryan

Habeas Corpus: To obtain relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), a party must show that the state court’s decision 1) “was contrary to clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court,” 2) “involved an unreasonable application of such law,” or 3) “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the record before the state court.”

(Filing Date: 09-10-2012)

Yeager v. Bowlin

Civil Law: Under California law, a statement is not "republished" on a website unless "the statement itself is substantively altered or added to" or "the website is directed to a new audience."

(Filing Date: 09-10-2012)

United States v. Williams

Sentencing: At sentencing, charges may be grouped under § 3D1.2 if they involve substantially the same harm directed at the same victim. "Indirect or secondary victims are not meant to be included in the term 'victim.'"

(Filing Date: 09-07-2012)

Cheema v. Holder

Immigration: The written advisals on the I-589 asylum application form gives applicants adequate notice of the repercussions of “knowingly filing a frivolous asylum application” and, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(4)(A), of the privilege of having representation by counsel.

(Filing Date: 09-06-2012)

Frankl v. HTH Corporation

Labor Law: A party to labor negotiations must bargain in good faith, and cannot be allowed to profit from its own wasteful and unlawful activities that hinder the bargaining process.

(Filing Date: 09-06-2012)

In Re: Rigel Pharmaceuticals

Civil Law: District court did not err by granting defendants’ motion to dismiss because plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead securities violations for misleading and fraudulent statements issued by a drug development company in relation to their 2008 stock offering.

(Filing Date: 09-06-2012)

Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa

First Amendment: A city ordinance is an unconstitutional restriction on expressive nonverbal conduct on grounds of overbreadth, where it prohibits “personal, impertinent, profane, insolent, or slanderous remarks” in a limited public forum, without requiring actual disruption.

(Filing Date: 09-05-2012)

Lavan v. City of Los Angeles

42 USC § 1983: The Fourth Amendment does not require a party have a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in their property to protect that property from governmental seizure.

(Filing Date: 09-05-2012)

Autotel v. Nevada Bell Telephone Company

Civil Law: Interim digital interconnection and symmetrical pricing is only required to be provided during negotiations between telecommunications companies that lack a prior interconnectivity agreement, because 47 C.F.R. § 20.11(e) fully incorporates 47 C.F.R. § 51.715.

(Filing Date: 09-04-2012)

Dennis v. Kellogg Company

Civil Law: Failing to identify recipients, using vague language in a settlement, and failing to delineate specifically how a cash sum or award is to be disbursed can be fatal to cy pres product settlement awards.

(Filing Date: 09-04-2012)

Price v. Stevedoring Services

Workers Compensation: The litigating position of the Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, which interprets the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, is not entitled to Chevron deference.

(Filing Date: 09-04-2012)

Sanchez-Avalos v. Holder

Immigration: For purposes of assessing eligibility for waiver of inadmissibility, the “modified” categorical approach allows courts to consider only those facts upon which a defendant’s conviction “necessarily rested.”

(Filing Date: 09-04-2012)

Wood v. Beauclair

Constitutional Law: In a prisoner's claim against a prison for violation of constitutional rights flowing from sexual harassment by a prison official, the inmate is entitled to the presumption that the conduct was not consensual.

(Filing Date: 09-04-2012)

Corpuz v. Holder

Immigration: For purposes of determining removability, where a defendant receives credit against a criminal sentence for time spent in civil confinement, the percentage of good time credit the defendant received while in prison should be applied to his pre-trial civil confinement period in calculating the entire term of imprisonment.

(Filing Date: 08-31-2012)

Davis v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A.

Civil Procedure: The district court properly incorporates extrinsic evidence in a 12(b)(6) motion when the evidence is referenced in the complaint and the party opposing incorporation fails to challenge its authenticity by arguing that he lacked access to the evidence.

(Filing Date: 08-31-2012)

In re Flores

Bankruptcy Law: In a Chapter 13 plan, the reorganization period for an above-median-income debtor may be less than five years when projected disposable income is zero or negative. The Supreme Court's decision in Lanning did not overrule Ninth Circuit precedent in Kagenveama as it pertains to determining the applicable commitment period in Chapter 13 plans.

(Filing Date: 08-31-2012)

U.S. Auto Parts Network v. Parts Geek

Copyright: In determining whether work by an employee is “work for hire,” the employer must prove that (1) it is the kind of work the employee is employed to perform (2) it occurred substantially within the authorized time and space limits, and (3) it was actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer.

(Filing Date: 08-31-2012)

United States v. Guerrero

Appellate Procedure: The Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to review non-final judgments, unless the Collateral Order Doctrine or a Writ of Mandamus applies.

(Filing Date: 08-31-2012)

Greene Archives v. Marilyn Monroe

Civil Procedure: Judicial estoppel precludes a party from asserting California’s posthumous right of publicity where that party “consistently represented during probate proceedings and elsewhere that [the celebrity] was domiciled in New York to avoid payment of California estate taxes.”

(Filing Date: 08-30-2012)

United States v. Vasquez-Cruz

Sentencing: In reviewing a district court’s denial of a departure, the court of appeals will review the denial only for substantive reasonableness, not procedural correctness.

(Filing Date: 08-30-2012)

Ayala v. Wong

Habeas Corpus: During preemptory jury challenges, the defense counsel may not be excluded from Batson steps two and three, except when confidential or strategic reasons justify the challenge.

(Filing Date: 08-29-2012)

Jefferson & Co. v. Board of Assessment

42 USC § 1983: In an administrative hearing where statutory provisions allow separate county counsel attorneys to represent both the challenged government agency and the administrative panel adjudicating the appeal, the presumption that the adjudicator is unbiased remains as long as screening procedures exist to maintain an ethical wall between the two attorneys’ activities.

(Filing Date: 08-29-2012)

Lacey v. Maricopa County

Civil Law: A claim against a party "dismissed with prejudice, and without leave to amend" is considered preserved for appeal, regardless of whether the dismissed party is included in a repled complaint.

(Filing Date: 08-29-2012)

Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

Copyright: The equitable defense of laches bars recovery of copyright claims where the plaintiff delays for 18 years, the reasons for delay are only inconveniences, and defendant expends considerable resources in the copyrighted work, even when the defendant receives profit during the plaintiff's delay.

(Filing Date: 08-29-2012)

FTC v. EDebitPay

Contract Law: A party who stipulated to terms in a contract may not later attack those terms as overly broad or vague.

(Filing Date: 08-28-2012)

Gentry v. Sinclair

Habeas Corpus: First, when a claim has been presented to a state court and not remedied it becomes exhausted. Second, when a claim has been tried on substantive ground, even though it has not been tried on procedural grounds, it is deemed to have been adjudicated on the merits. Third, when there is proof that counsel seeks additional resources for further evidence, even if the evidence is not used; it is reasonable to resolve that there was not deficient performance by counsel.

(Filing Date: 08-28-2012)

Perfectly Fresh Farms v. USDA

Civil Law: Violations of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”), 7 U.S.C. §499, can result in employment and licensing bans in the perishable produce industry if the person or subsidiary is found to be "responsibly connected."

(Filing Date: 08-28-2012)

Reynoso v. United States

Tax Law: "A taxpayer's claim for credit of an overpayment is limited to the amount of the overpayment made within of the applicable look-back period in § 6511(b)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code." "Any claim for refund based on an amount claimed as a credit but paid outside of the § 6511(b)(2)(A) look-back period is time barred and uncollectible."

(Filing Date: 08-28-2012)

Stancle v. Clay

Habeas Corpus: The district court properly denied appellant’s writ of habeas petition because it was time-barred by the AEDPA one-year statute of limitations and petitioner was unable to show why his petition was entitled to tolling, either for gap tolling because his first two filings with the state superior court constituted a “new round,” or equitable tolling due to mental incompetence.

(Filing Date: 08-28-2012)

California Tow Truck v. City of San Francisco

Administrative Law: When preemption is claimed to a comprehensive law, the court must look at each individual provision and not at the law as a whole.

(Filing Date: 08-27-2012)

City of Redding v. FERC

Administrative Law: Under § 206 of the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission does not have broad retroactive ratesetting authority over non-jurisdictional sellers. FERC’s refund authority under the provision is limited to being prospective only, and it extends only to those entities under its jurisdiction.

(Filing Date: 08-27-2012)

Miles v. Ryan

Habeas Corpus: Petitioner's claims that his counsel performed ineffectively in his sentencing trial fail because counsel's reasonable strategy of presenting him as a normal person require deference and he suffered no prejudice as a result.

(Filing Date: 08-27-2012)

Ortiz-Alfaro v. Holder

Immigration: A reinstated removal order is not final, and the Ninth Circuit cannot consider a challenge to reinstatement regulations, while a petitioner’s “reasonable fear screening is still ongoing.”

(Filing Date: 08-27-2012)

United States v. Bailey

Evidence: Under Rule 404(b), proof of guilt cannot be demonstrated by the fact that defendant settled because a defendant might settle for any number of reasons, and a complaint only proves that plaintiff alleges conduct, not that defendant was guilty of that conduct.

(Filing Date: 08-27-2012)

United States v. Pineda-Doval

Criminal Law: Reckless driving that results in an fatal accident does not amount to acting with malice aforethought, if the driver did not comprehend the risk involved.

(Filing Date: 08-27-2012)

Costa v. Commissioner SSA

Attorney Fees: A judge is required to give specific justifications for reducing lawyer fee awards when such reductions are a sizable amount of the final award, contrary to informal policies stating otherwise and regardless of the routine nature of the case.

(Filing Date: 08-24-2012)

Cabantac v. Holder

Evidence: Evidence that a defendant pleaded guilty to a count of possession of methamphetamine is sufficient to prove that the defendant was convicted of a controlled substance offense under 21 U.S.C. § 802, and not a general state offense.

(Filing Date: 08-23-2012)

Frost v. Van Boening

Habeas Corpus: In a habeas corpus petition, a trial court’s restriction of the defense’s closing argument, disallowing the simultaneous use of the affirmative defense of duress and accomplice liability, does not amount to a structural error where it does not have a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.”

(Filing Date: 08-22-2012)

Peter-Palican v. Northern Mariana Islands

42 USC § 1983: The Special Assistant to the Governor of Women’s Affairs possesses a protected property interest in continued employment only during the term of the appointing governor under Article III, section 2 of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Constitution. Thus, the Special Assistant has no due process claim against the Commonwealth when she is terminated without cause under a new governor.

(Filing Date: 08-22-2012)

United States v. H.B., Juvenile Male

Indian Law: For a Juvenile adjudication sentence to be reasonable the least restrictive placement for the youth must be considered, the order for detention must be no longer than necessary for treatment, and due consideration should be given for the “unique concerns and needs of [Native American youth], as they are ‘disproportionately subject to federal court jurisdiction for their delinquency offenses’ on account of the structure of the FJDA.”

(Filing Date: 08-22-2012)

Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar

Environmental Law: The Fish and Wildlife Service's determination that oil and gas regulation would take only “relatively small numbers” of polar bears and Pacific walruses in relation to population size is consistent with and permissible under the MMPA and other environmental statutes.

(Filing Date: 08-21-2012)

United States v. Dreyer

Criminal Procedure: A district judge has a statutory duty to order a competency hearing sua sponte if evidence of incompetency causes a reasonable judge to experience a genuine doubt regarding the defendant’s competence.

(Filing Date: 08-21-2012)

Cook Inlet Region v. Rude

Indian Law: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal district court courts have federal question jurisdiction over non-frivolous claims arising under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act ("ANCSA"), even where the ANCSA incorporates state law.

(Filing Date: 08-20-2012)

United States v. McTiernan

Criminal Procedure: To merit suppression of a recording under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(2)(d) and 2515, a defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a recording was made for criminal or tortious purposes, and not merely for recordkeeping or other non-criminal reasons.

(Filing Date: 08-20-2012)

Jones v. Ryan

Habeas Corpus: A claim for prosecutorial misconduct will not succeed when the evidence is not material to the case, no prejudice results from inconsistencies of that evidence, and the evidence is just one piece of the mosaic of evidence against the petitioner.

(Filing Date: 08-16-2012)

Meruelo v. CIR

Tax Law: The IRS has authority to issue a valid Notice of Deficiency on a partner of an LLC if there are no pending partnership-level proceedings. The mere consideration of future partnership-level proceedings does not invalidate a Notice of Deficiency.

(Filing Date: 08-16-2012)

Sessoms v. Runnels

Habeas Corpus: Where a suspect has not waived his Miranda rights, a suspect invokes his right to counsel by making a statement “that can reasonably be construed to be an expression of a desire for the assistance of an attorney.”

(Filing Date: 08-16-2012)

Sollberger v. CIR

Tax Law: The determination of “whether a sale occurs for tax purposes is based on a flexible case-by-case analysis of whether the burdens and benefits of ownership have been transferred.”

(Filing Date: 08-16-2012)

United States v. Duenas

Criminal Procedure: Evidence developed during a police search tainted by media presence need not be excluded so long as the media did not “discover or develop any evidence later used at trial.”

(Filing Date: 08-16-2012)

Aguilar-Turcios v. Holder

Immigration: A conviction under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice is “not an aggravated felony under the modified categorical approach” for purposes of determining whether a legal permanent resident is removable.

(Filing Date: 08-15-2012)

United States v. Acosta-Sierra

Criminal Law: The proper standard to apply for a “criminal assault charge based on causing the apprehension of imminent bodily injury, under 18 U.S.C. § 111, is that of a “reasonable person who observes what the official observes.”

(Filing Date: 08-15-2012)

Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc.

Copyright: In a Copyright issue, the fair use doctrine does not protect unauthorized use of copyrighted material when that use was: commercial and non-transformative; the first instance of that material being published; total; and the use destroys the potential market for the material.

(Filing Date: 08-14-2012)

Grand Canyon Trust v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Environmental Law: The Bureau of Reclamation's annual operating plan for a dam is not a discretionary act or a "major Federal action" and does not require consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act, nor an environmental impact statement or an environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act.

(Filing Date: 08-13-2012)

Chaudhry v. Astrue

Disability Law: In a Social Security disability hearing, an ALJ is not required to obtain the disability determination from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) where the applicant is represented by counsel and the record contains evidence of the applicant's DVA disability rating.

(Filing Date: 08-10-2012)

In re Tober

Bankruptcy Law: Arizona law allows a debtor to exempt “the cash surrender value of [certain] life insurance policies” and annuity contracts from execution, attachment or sale when the beneficiary is a “surviving spouse, child, parent, brother or sister,” despite the beneficiary not being a dependent of the debtor.

(Filing Date: 08-10-2012)

Mojica v. Holder

Immigration: The years of residency of a petitioner’s relative will not be imputed to the petitioner for purposes of satisfying the five-year lawful permanent residence requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(1).

(Filing Date: 08-10-2012)

Rodriguez v. Disner

Attorney Fees: Under long standing equitable principles, a district court has broad discretion to deny fees to an attorney who commits an ethical violation, such as representing clients with conflicting interests, regardless of whether or not the clients are harmed by the ethical violation.

(Filing Date: 08-10-2012)

Scotts Company v. Seeds, Inc.

Civil Procedure: When a federal court evaluates realigning the parties in a case, it may not consider claims made in a different case for purposes of dismissing or staying the proceeding.

(Filing Date: 08-10-2012)

Hiler v. Astrue

Disability Law: In a Social Security Disability hearing, an ALJ errs by relying solely on an interim Veterans Affairs (VA) disability decision, where a later VA decision rejects the interim decision.

(Filing Date: 08-09-2012)

Native Village of Kivalina v. EPA

Administrative Law: A petitioner has not shown that an agency’s responses to comments are clearly erroneous, irrelevant, insufficient, or an abuse of discretion, as required for review of permitting decisions under 40 C.F.R.§ 124.19, where the petitioner reiterates previously submitted comments but does not engage the agency’s responses to those comments.

(Filing Date: 08-09-2012)

United States v. Flores-Mejia

Sentencing: A conviction of robbery under California Penal Code § 211 is a categorical crime of violence under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2.

(Filing Date: 08-09-2012)

United States v. Henry

Constitutional Law: Second Amendment rights do not extend to machine guns and Congress has the power to regulate possession and modification of “dangerous and unusual” weapons.

(Filing Date: 08-09-2012)

United States v. Huang

Sentencing: The district court sentencing of defendant for drug offenses was not in error because the defendant failed to show that he was subject to sentencing entrapment, the sentencing enhancement for importation pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(5) was proper because the government need only show that the drugs were imported, and the sentence received was reasonable because defendant did not cooperate.

(Filing Date: 08-08-2012)

Al-Haramain Islamic v. Obama

Constitutional Law: The use of the word "person" under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's civil liability provision, 50 U.S.C. § 1810, while referring to federal employees without including the United States, does not explicitly waive sovereign immunity.

(Filing Date: 08-07-2012)

Carlin v. DairyAmerica, Inc.

Civil Law: The USDA possesses sufficient regulatory authority over "agency-set minimum prices for raw milk" to make applicable the filed rate doctrine. The USDA’s expression of disapproval of prices set, while not necessarily an explicit rejection, may preclude application of the doctrine.

(Filing Date: 08-07-2012)

Dahlia v. Rodriguez

First Amendment: A police officer’s speech alleging the use of abusive interrogation techniques is not protected as private speech under the First Amendment.

(Filing Date: 08-07-2012)

Drew v. Equifax

Civil Law: A credit reporting agency’s notification of a fraudulent account triggers the creditor’s duty under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to investigate and react to the fraudulent account, even if the notification does not specifically state that the creditor is required to act.

(Filing Date: 08-07-2012)

Hill v. Astrue

Disability Law: At the fifth step of the five-step sequential analysis required under 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(i)-(v), “[i]f a vocational expert’s hypothetical does not reflect all the claimant’s limitations, then the expert’s testimony has no evidentiary value to support a finding that the claimant can perform jobs in the national economy.”

(Filing Date: 08-07-2012)

United States v. Bustamante

Evidence: For purposes of admissibility, a transcript of a birth certificate constitutes an “affidavit testifying to the contents of the birth records.” Admission of such evidence without the opportunity for cross-examination violates the Confrontation Clause.

(Filing Date: 08-07-2012)

United States v. Golden Valley Electric

Administrative Law: Compliance with a subpoena issued by an administrative agency does not render an appeal of the subpoena moot. However, the subpoena is valid if it is relevant to a current investigation, is not overly broad, is procedurally proper and does not violate the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement.

(Filing Date: 08-07-2012)

United States v. Turner

Parole and Post-Prison Supervision: A civil detention under the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act does not amount to a term of “imprisonment” so as to preclude and toll the commencement of a sex offender’s supervised release term.

(Filing Date: 08-07-2012)

Jackson v. State of Nevada

Evidence: A trial court’s denial of relevant police witness testimony regarding an alleged victim’s past false accusations of rape violates a defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense and confront witnesses.

(Filing Date: 08-06-2012)

Matthews v. NFL Management Council

Workers Compensation: A claimant fails to establish that an arbitration award violates the public policy of one state where the claimant fails to allege that he suffered a specific injury in that state.

(Filing Date: 08-06-2012)

United States v. Pineda-Moreno

Criminal Procedure: Evidence is not subject to the exclusionary rule when government agents act in objectively reasonable reliance on then-binding precedent regarding the method used to obtain the evidence.

(Filing Date: 08-06-2012)

Dickens v. Ryan

Habeas Corpus: A claim under Martinez v. Ryan for ineffective assistance of post-conviction relief counsel may not need to be exhausted as previously suggested, because the claim is an equitable claim and not a constitutional claim.

(Filing Date: 08-03-2012)

Hooper v. Lockheed Martin

Civil Law: A transferee court must apply the state statute of limitations that a transferor court would have applied in cases arising under federal question jurisdiction. Further, a fraudulent estimate made for a bid on a contract can carry liability under the FCA.

(Filing Date: 08-02-2012)

Evon v. Law Offices of Mickell

Civil Law: A debt collector’s practice of sending collection letters addressed to the debtor and in “care of” the debtor’s employer without obtaining the debtor’s prior consent constitutes a per se violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

(Filing Date: 08-01-2012)

Nijjar v. Holder

Immigration: Congress authorized both the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to grant asylum, but conferred the authority to terminate asylum only upon the Department of Justice.

(Filing Date: 08-01-2012)

Scott v. Ryan

Habeas Corpus: A claim for ineffective assistance of counsel will not be upheld if an attorney fails to present evidence that does not support a theory of defense, the legal outcome is unlikely to be different, and there is no prejudice to the defendant.

(Filing Date: 08-01-2012)

Lee v. West Coast Life Insurance

Civil Procedure: Consistent with Supreme Court and other circuit courts’ reasoning, the Ninth Circuit found that the federal interpleader remedy was not created to protect negligent stakeholders from tort liability for their creation of a conflict over entitlement to interpleaded funds. Claimants are thus entitled to recover all damages that flow directly and proximately from a negligent stakeholder’s actions.

(Filing Date: 07-31-2012)

Native Village of Eyak v. Blank

Indian Law: To properly claim aboriginal fishing rights, a group of Native Americans must show by a preponderance of the evidence that for the area claimed, the group maintained exclusive use of the territory and successfully prevented other individuals or groups from exploiting the benefits of the exclusive territory. Failure to demonstrate a population size reasonably necessary to enforce the exclusivity, in the absence of other evidence of dominion and control of the claimed area, will prevent the court from finding that the Native Americans had the necessary exclusive control of the claimed area.

(Filing Date: 07-31-2012)

Bullock v. Berrien

Civil Procedure: A federal employee exhausts administrative remedies when asserting discrimination claims under the Rehabilitation Act by (1) first filing an informal complaint, (2) filing a formal complaint for a decision by an ALJ if an informal solution is not achieved, and (3) filing an optional civil action in “federal district court within 90 days of receiving notice of final agency action on the employee’s formal complaint by the ALJ” or after 180 days “from the filing of the complaint if no final action has been taken by that time”.

(Filing Date: 07-30-2012)

International Rehabilitative Sciences v. Sebelius

Insurance Law: Deference is given to the highest level of agency adjudication in regards to whether a new device is considered “reasonable and necessary” as to be covered under Medicare, if the adjudication is not arbitrary or capricious.

(Filing Date: 07-30-2012)

League of Wilderness Defenders v. USFS

Administrative Law: Where the U.S. Forestry Service proposes a forest management research project in an experimental forest specifically set aside for such study, the agency's EIS satisfies NEPA if it (1) considers a reasonable range of alternatives that would fulfill the Project’s goals and research objectives; (2) is adequately supported by scientific data; and (3) takes a hard look at the significant impacts of the Project.

(Filing Date: 07-30-2012)

Cook v. Ryan

Habeas Corpus: When a state requires a petitioner to raise a trial ineffective assistance of counsel claim in collateral proceedings, a petitioner may establish cause for procedural default of this claim by demonstrating two things: “(1) ‘counsel in the initial-review collateral proceeding, where the claim should have been raised, was ineffective under the standards of Strickland v. Washington,’ and (2) ‘the underlying ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim is a substantial one, which is to say that the petitioner must demonstrate that the claim has some merit.’”

(Filing Date: 07-27-2012)

California Communities Against Toxics v. EPA

Administrative Law: Vacatur of an invalid EPA rule during the pendency of remand is not appropriate where the vacatur would defeat the purpose of the Act under which the rule was made and the economic outcome would be disastrous.

(Filing Date: 07-26-2012)

Latif v. Holder

Administrative Law: Individuals placed on the "No-Fly List" by the Terrorist Screening Center can have their claims handled by the district court, which has jurisdiction to offer a broader range of remedies that the Court of Appeals.

(Filing Date: 07-26-2012)

In re Midland National Life Insurance Co

Evidence: A Daubert motion filed in connection with a pending summary judgment motion may be dispositive and require continuing compelling reasons be shown to maintain a sealed record. The Ninth Circuit exception for records attached to a non-dispositive motion, requiring only "good cause" to maintain a sealed record, is not automatically applied to Daubert motions.

(Filing Date: 07-25-2012)

United States v. Valdes-Vega

Criminal Procedure: Under the totality of the circumstances, reasonable suspicion of illegal immigration or drug activity must be based on a more particularized profile than geographical proximity to a border and driving erratically.

(Filing Date: 07-25-2012)

Headley v. Church of Scientology

Criminal Law: Under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, no genuine issue of material fact exists in a psychologically coerced labor claim where the claimant fails to show that the defendant-employer obtained the claimant’s labor “‘by means of’ serious harm, threats, or other improper methods.”

(Filing Date: 07-24-2012)

Pacific Ship Repair v. OWCP

Workers Compensation: “[A]n employee who has a permanent partial disability may be reclassified as temporarily totally disabled during a recovery period following surgery.”

(Filing Date: 07-24-2012)

United States v. Oliva

Criminal Procedure: An electronic surveillance order authorizing interception of background conversations while the telephone is "off the hook or otherwise in use" satisfies the requirements of § 2518 of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 as a "standard" intercept and does not constitute a "roving" intercept.

(Filing Date: 07-20-2012)

United States v. Rangel

Sentencing: A district court may vary, but not depart from, a sentence under the advisory Sentencing Guidelines without notice, and may consider a defendant's inability to pay restitution as a factor to vary the sentence.

(Filing Date: 07-20-2012)

Anchorage School District v. M.P.

Education Law: Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a “stay put” order does not excuse an educational agency’s failure to provide an updated Individualized Educational Program for an eligible student on a yearly basis.

(Filing Date: 07-19-2012)

Alderson v. United States

Tax Law: In a qui tam action, a relator’s share is considered ordinary income for income tax purposes.

(Filing Date: 07-18-2012)

Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co.

Disability Law: Without proof that Segways cannot be operated safely within its theme parks, Disney might be required under the ADA to allow disabled persons to use Segways.

(Filing Date: 07-18-2012)

Hester v. Vision Airlines, Inc.

Civil Procedure: In determining whether a district court erred in ordering a default judgment, the reviewing court will consider whether the district court: (1) “explicitly discussed the alternative of lesser sanctions and explained why it would be inappropriate;” (2) “implemented lesser sanctions before ordering the case dismissed;” and (3) “warned the offending party of the possibility of dismissal.”

(Filing Date: 07-18-2012)

Runningeagle v. Ryan

Habeas Corpus: A district court does not err in denying a habeas corpus claim when the petitioner fails to show that withheld evidence is material and favorable; mere speculation is not enough.

(Filing Date: 07-18-2012)

NRDC v. Salazar

Environmental Law: District court properly granted defendants’ summary judgment motion because plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s renewal of historical water service contracts for senior water rights holders based on violations of §7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act violations, which does not apply to the settlement contracts.

(Filing Date: 07-17-2012)

Patel v. City of Los Angeles

Constitutional Law: A municipal code requiring hotel operators to retain and make available certain guest information is not facially unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment.

(Filing Date: 07-17-2012)

United States v. Pope

Constitutional Law: “A formal arrest is not always necessary to conduct a search without a warrant.” When there is probable cause to make an arrest, high risk evidence will be destroyed, and the search is “commensurate with the circumstances necessitating the intrusion,” a warrantless search is justified. A command can effectuate a search when followed, but noncompliance with the command maintains one’s reasonable expectation of privacy and does not constitute a search.

(Filing Date: 07-17-2012)

Terenkian v. Republic of Iraq

Civil Procedure: When asserting jurisdiction over a foreign country under the commercial activity exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §1602, et seq., a plaintiff must assert more than the mere execution of a contract within the boarders of the United States and/or prove the action constituted a "legally significant act" which had a "direct effect on the United States."

(Filing Date: 07-16-2012)

Ginsberg v. Northwest, Inc.

Contract Law: A claim against an airline for breach of contract of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in not preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act.

(Filing Date: 07-15-2012)

Dennis v. Kellogg Company

Civil Law: A district court abuses its discretion when cy pres distributions in a pre-certified class settlement for false advertisement claims are not upheld when the award is not related to the plaintiffs class’s underlying assertions, does not clearly identify the beneficiaries of the cy pres award, and is not “guided by the objectives of the underlying statute”.

(Filing Date: 07-13-2012)

Sateriale v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Contract Law: The existence of an offer to enter into a unilateral contract exists where a company promises to provide rewards to customers who purchase the company’s product, save Cash certificates, and redeem their certificates in accordance with the catalog’s terms, and an alleged breach of this unilateral contract is readily discernible when the company refuses to redeem leftover reward points for merchandise in accordance to terms provided. Consumers seeking to recover damages under the Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act based on a fraud theory must prove there was actual reliance on the misrepresentation and harm.

(Filing Date: 07-13-2012)

Gale v. First Franklin Loan Services

Civil Law: The Truth in Lending Act 15 U.S.C. § 1641(f)(2) applies a duty to provide notice only upon a servicer-assignee. Servicers, that are not assignees, have no duty to respond to an obligor's written request for information regarding the obligor's obligation under 15 U.S.C. § 1641(f)(2).

(Filing Date: 07-12-2012)

In Re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation

Standing: Plaintiffs alleging price fixing of ATM fees may not bring an antitrust lawsuit when they are not direct payers of the fee.

(Filing Date: 07-12-2012)

Michelman v. Lincoln National Life

Insurance Law: Interpleader is appropriate, even if competing stakeholders' claims are frivolous, as long as the interpleader has a good faith belief that its claims are colorable.

(Filing Date: 07-12-2012)

Nelson v. City of Davis

Constitutional Law: Pepperball projectiles, which combine pepper spray and concussive force, "merely combine two types of force that we have already recognized as unreasonable when aimed at individuals who pose no threat and have committed, at most, minor offenses."

(Filing Date: 07-11-2012)

Rosa v. TASER International

Tort Law: A manufacturer does not have a duty to warn of “every report of a possible risk, no matter how speculative, conjectural or tentative," because it would dilute the warning of danger.

(Filing Date: 07-10-2012)

Flores-Lopez v. Holder

Immigration: Because California Penal Code § 69 does not require proof of the requisite level of intent of force, it is not a categorical crime of violence.

(Filing Date: 07-09-2012)

In the Matter of Eber

Bankruptcy Law: A district court does not abuse its discretion when it affirms a bankruptcy court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration where the bankruptcy court implicitly concludes that “allowing an arbitrator to decide issues that are so closely intertwined with dischargeability would ‘conflict with the underlying purposes of the Bankruptcy Code.’”

(Filing Date: 07-09-2012)

Woods v. Carey

Civil Procedure: “ Rand and Wyatt notices must be served concurrently with motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment so that pro se prisoner plaintiffs will have fair, timely and adequate notice of what is required of them in order to oppose those motions."

(Filing Date: 07-06-2012)

Back v. Sebelius

Administrative Law: A case must be dismissed as moot when no controversy exists because the agency already has in place the administrative appeals process that the plaintiff seeks.

(Filing Date: 07-05-2012)

Annachamy v. Holder

Immigration: The material support bar does not include a "political offense exception," nor does it include an exception for duress and involuntary action.

(Filing Date: 07-03-2012)

Day v. AT & T Disability Income Plan

Administrative Law: When an ERISA plan beneficiary and long-term disability recipient elects to roll over his pension benefits into an IRA, that action is considered under Blankenship as the beneficiary having "received" his benefits. Thus, the employer can reduce the beneficiary's long-term disability payments by the amount of the rollover, provided that the employer does not violate the notice requirement of ERISA and the ADEA.

(Filing Date: 07-03-2012)

United States v. Castillo-Marin

Sentencing: Courts may not simply rely on a Presentence Investigation Report in determining the sentencing level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 for an individual with a prior conviction. Such reliance results in clear and obvious error.

(Filing Date: 07-03-2012)

Ford v. Gonzalez

Criminal Procedure: When the factual predicate and speculative inferences of a claim have been present since the trial and could have been discovered through reasonable due diligence in the circumstances, a plaintiff is not entitled to equitable tolling.

(Filing Date: 07-02-2012)

United States v. Yepiz

Criminal Procedure: Acceptance of a jury panel as constituted cannot be used as a waiver of either party’s allotted peremptory challenges under Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Denial of a peremptory challenge does not affect the party’s substantial rights, if the challenged juror is not shown to be biased.

(Filing Date: 07-02-2012)

Rivera-Peraza v. Holder

Immigration: An alien seeking permanent resident status through a waiver of inadmissibility under §1182(h)(1)(B), and who is also subject to §1212.7(d) due to a conviction of a “violent or dangerous crime,” must first meet the threshold discretionary demonstration of hardship as defined by §1182(h)(1)(B), followed by the additional discretionary requirement that the alien and family members face “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.”

(Filing Date: 06-29-2012)

Sawyers v. Holder

Immigration: The years of residency of a petitioner’s relative will not be imputed to the petitioner for purposes of satisfying the seven-year continuous residence requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(2).

(Filing Date: 06-29-2012)

United States v. CB & I Constructors, Inc.

Tort Law: Intangible environmental damages caused by a negligently set wildfire are included in property damage under California law.

(Filing Date: 06-29-2012)

United States v. Thoms

Appellate Procedure: Where a magistrate judge makes credibility findings that favor the government, but the district court reverses, to the detriment of the government, the government is entitled to a de novo determination unless, as a matter of law, no reasonable factfinder could have found the particular government testimony credible.

(Filing Date: 06-29-2012)

Nian v. Holder

Immigration: Denial of an alien crewmember’s petition in “asylum-only” proceedings is the "functional equivalent" of a final order of removal giving a reviewing court jurisdiction.

(Filing Date: 06-28-2012)

Braunstein v. Arizona DOT

Constitutional Law: A prospective subcontractor can challenge a government program that “gives general contractors a financial incentive to hire minority-owned subcontractors” under the equal protection clause when he satisfies the elements of Article III standing, (1) he has suffered an “injury in fact” that is particular and concrete (2) the injury is traceable to the defendants actions (3) the injury can be remedied by a favorable decision, and proves that the program affected him personally. A subcontractor fails to meet this standard where he does not submit a bid and would be unable to compete with other subcontractors.

(Filing Date: 06-27-2012)

Rearden LLC v. Rearden Commerce, Inc.

Trademarks: Summary judgment is generally disfavored due to the fact-intensive nature of trademark cases, and many such cases must be evaluated according to multiple-prong tests that require full development of the record.

(Filing Date: 06-27-2012)

Rodriguez v. Holder

Immigration: The BIA may never engage in de novo review of an IJ’s factual findings or credibility determinations. It may only review these for clear error, and it is legal error for the BIA to make its own factual determinations. If an IJ has not determined a fact necessary to the resolution of the case, the BIA is required to remand the case to the IJ.

(Filing Date: 06-27-2012)

United States v. Gonzalez

Criminal Procedure: Venue is proper in any location where acts or communications take place that further a conspiracy, regardless of the knowledge by the co-conspirators of the locations of their co-conspirators.

(Filing Date: 06-27-2012)

Snoqualmie Valley Preservation v. USACE

Administrative Law: “Although NWP 17 [72 Fed. Reg. at 11,184] is the only general permit specifically referencing hydropower projects, no language contained therein prevents the [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers] from applying other permits to hydropower projects that meet those other permits’ standards.”

(Filing Date: 06-26-2012)

United States v. Meredith

Criminal Law: Evidence supporting convictions for conspiracy and fraud is sufficient where the defendant’s speech underlying the crime was “integral to [the] criminal conduct,” and therefore unprotected under the First Amendment.

(Filing Date: 06-26-2012)

Building Industry v. Washington State

Preemption: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 does not preempt the Washington Building Code, because the Code “satisfies the conditions Congress established for enforcement of state and local building codes consistent with federal energy law.”

(Filing Date: 06-25-2012)

Mackey v. Hoffman

Civil Procedure: If a district court finds that an attorney effectively abandoned an incarcerated habeas petitioner, rendering him unable to file a timely appeal, the district court has discretion to grant relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).

(Filing Date: 06-25-2012)

Haynes v. City and County of San Francisco

Civil Procedure: A district court may, in its discretion, reduce a sanctions award under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 if an attorney is unable to pay the total costs of excess costs, expenses, and fees.

(Filing Date: 06-23-2012)

Johnson v. Uribe

Habeas Corpus: Vacating a defendant’s conviction and granting him a new trial is an adequate remedy for a constitutional violation of ineffective assistance of counsel when the violation occurred during the plea negotiation stage.

(Filing Date: 06-22-2012)

United States v. Collins

Parole and Post-Prison Supervision: To impose a lifetime term of supervised release, the government must prove that the “condition of supervised release involves no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to serve the goals of supervised release." The heightened burden of clear and convincing evidence does not apply.

(Filing Date: 06-22-2012)

United States v. Rivera

Constitutional Law: When a district court excludes a criminal defendant's family members from the sentencing proceeding, the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial is violated because (1) the right to a "public trial" applies to sentencing proceedings, and (2) the district court’s belief that the family members’ presence is "manipulative" is not a "substantial reason" warranting their exclusion.

(Filing Date: 06-22-2012)

United States v. Suarez

Sentencing: Mandatory minimum sentencing under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A) does not apply when the prior conviction did not result from a final judgment or a legally cognizable sentence resulting in a final judgment. A guilty plea with entry in a deferral program requiring treatment, but without a probation or imprisonment, does not qualify as a final judgment or a legally cognizable sentence.

(Filing Date: 06-22-2012)

In re Blixseth

Bankruptcy Law: "11 U.S.C. § 362(h) combined with § 521(a)(2) lifts an automatic stay and removes personal property from the estate without a timely filing of a statement of intention and a motion to determine value or benefit of property by the trustee."

(Filing Date: 06-21-2012)

United States v. Mak

Criminal Law: A defendant’s conviction under the Arms Export Control Act did not constitute reversible error where the district court properly instructed the jury that any information in the public domain cannot be “technical data.”

(Filing Date: 06-21-2012)

United States v. Ramos-Medina

Sentencing: A sentencing court “may consider acceptance of responsibility separately in imposing a sentence, even if the court determined that the defendant did not qualify for a formal adjustment on those grounds” under the Sentencing Guidelines.

(Filing Date: 06-21-2012)

United States v. Wing

Parole and Post-Prison Supervision: “[A] district court lacks jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) to revoke a term of supervised release based on newly discovered violations of a previously revoked term of supervised release.”

(Filing Date: 06-21-2012)

Bilyeu v. Morgan Stanley

Administrative Law: Administrative Law: Under ERISA, a district court abuses its discretion in dismissing a claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies where the claimant “acted reasonably in light of [a plan fiduciary’s] ambiguous communications and failure to engage in a meaningful dialogue.”

(Filing Date: 06-20-2012)

CGI Technologies and Solutions v. Rose

Civil Law: Courts cannot be limited by contract terms in their ability to act as a court of equity, and may consider traditional equitable defenses under § 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

(Filing Date: 06-20-2012)

Chavez v. United States

Civil Procedure: To state a claim against a supervisor for a subordinate's alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment, the plaintiff must plausibly allege facts tending to show that a reasonable supervisor would find that the defendant's conduct was clearly "unlawful in the situation he confronted."

(Filing Date: 06-20-2012)

Pacific Rivers Council v. USFS

Environmental Law: An Environmental Impact Statement related to proposed changes of a forest regulated by the National Forest Management Act must, where "reasonably possible," take a "hard look" at the environmental consequences on wildlife likely to be affected by changes to the land.

(Filing Date: 06-20-2012)

Garamendi v. Henin

Civil Procedure: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(a) allows a court to clarify and explain a judgment consistent with the intent of the original judgment, even if there is no ambiguity. A party waives his arguments as to setoff, release, and the nature and amount of his liability if he fails to challenge the original default judgments.

(Filing Date: 06-19-2012)

Marrero v. Ives

Habeas Corpus: For purposes of applying the “escape hatch” under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, “[a] petitioner cannot be actually innocent of a noncapital sentence under the escape hatch.”

(Filing Date: 06-19-2012)

Peck v. Thomas

Administrative Law: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), agency decisions excluding inmates from early release carry a presumption of validity, and will be upheld if there is a reasonable basis for the decision.

(Filing Date: 06-19-2012)

United States v. Becker

Criminal Law: For purposes of ordering a defendant to register as a sex offender, knowingly taking or receiving obscene matters from an interactive computer service, a crime that does not amount to a categorical “sex offense” under SORNA, constitutes a “sex offense” where the defendant pleads guilty to the offense.

(Filing Date: 06-19-2012)

United States v. Marquez-Lobos

Sentencing: The generic definition of kidnapping implies a nefarious purpose that constitutes a “crime of violence.”

(Filing Date: 06-19-2012)

Vilchez v. Holder

Constitutional Law: Whether a particular video-conference hearing "violates due process must be determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the degree of interference with the full and fair presentation of petitioner's case caused by the video conference and on the degree of prejudice suffered by the petitioner."

(Filing Date: 06-19-2012)

Metabolic Research v. Ferrell

Appellate Procedure: “A pretrial special motion to dismiss under Nevada’s anti-SLAPP statute” is not an immediately appealable collateral order because the order is not “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment” and does not jeopardize a substantial public interest.

(Filing Date: 06-18-2012)

Renfro v. The Funky Door

Administrative Law: A disability insurance plan administrator does not abuse its discretion when (1) it does not have a conflict of interest and (2) the plain language of the plan supports its decision.

(Filing Date: 06-18-2012)

Briggs v. Grounds

Civil Procedure: The prosecution's use of preemptory challenges to strike three African American prospective jurors was explained by race-neutral reasoning. As such, the denial of Brigg's habeas petition was properly denied by the trial court and California Court of Appeals.

(Filing Date: 06-15-2012)

Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island

Constitutional Law: A City Council’s rolling moratorium on shoreline development, enacted without a public hearing, does not violate a citizen’s substantive due process rights when the city has legitimate interest in protecting wildlife and preserving the shoreline, and when the actions do not amount of egregious conduct. The moratorium does not violate procedural due process if done as a lawful legislative act.

(Filing Date: 06-15-2012)

Brewers v. Commissioner SSA

Administrative Law: Materials reviewed by the appeals council for the first time are accepted into the administrative record even if the appeals council denied a review of the administrative law judges' opinion.

(Filing Date: 06-14-2012)

United States v. California State Lands

Constitutional Law: So long as the federal government is within its constitutional right to take land, just compensation having been paid, “neither the equal-footing doctrine nor the public trust doctrine prevents the federal government from taking a [fee simple] interest in the land unencumbered;” be it from a person, or a state.

(Filing Date: 06-14-2012)

United States v. Elkins

Criminal Law: Sex offender registration requirements based on an offense committed by a juvenile before the passage of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause when state registration requirements at the time of the conviction require substantially similar disclosures.

(Filing Date: 06-14-2012)

Harris v. Rand

Civil Procedure: Hertz does not raise the pleading standard, it simply establishes that the "nerve center" is a corporation's principal place of business and sufficient allegations, not proof, are required to meet the minimum pleading requirements under Twombly and Iqbal .

(Filing Date: 06-13-2012)

National Association of Optometrists v. Harris

Constitutional Law: A non-discriminatory regulation does not impose a “significant burden on interstate commerce,” in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause, merely because it causes an incidental shift in profits to in-state entities from out-of-state entities operating in the state. In addition, absent a “significant burden,” courts need not determine whether statutory benefits are illusory, or whether less restrictive alternatives exist.

(Filing Date: 06-13-2012)

Avina v. United States

Tort Law: A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the conduct of DEA agents against two minors was excessive, given their ages and the threat that they posed, where the agents forced the handcuffed minors to lie face down on the floor and pointed guns at the head of one minor.

(Filing Date: 06-12-2012)

Okwu v. McKim

42 USC § 1983: “Congress’s inclusion of a comprehensive remedial scheme in Title I of the ADA precludes § 1983 claims predicated on alleged violations of ADA Title I substantive rights.”

(Filing Date: 06-12-2012)

United States v. Berry

Criminal Law: The district court does not err in denying a motion for acquittal or a new trial where prosecutorial misconduct and an improper jury instruction on the term "willfully" did not constitute grounds for reversal of the defendant’s conviction for social security fraud.

(Filing Date: 06-12-2012)

United States v. Ferro

Constitutional Law: In an in rem forfeiture proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d), the determination of whether a forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment should be based solely on the actions of the actual property owner, and the actions of the person that caused the forfeiture to occur.

(Filing Date: 06-12-2012)

Du v. Allstate Insurance Co.

Insurance Law: Under the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, an insurer’s duty to settle includes the duty to effectuate settlement even in the absence of a demand.

(Filing Date: 06-11-2012)

United States v. Grant

Criminal Procedure: The good faith reliance doctrine under United States v. Leon is inapplicable to an affidavit that does not “establish at least a colorable argument for probable cause.”

(Filing Date: 06-11-2012)

Garcia v. Thomas

Habeas Corpus: Under the Convention Against Torture and the Due Process Clause, an extraditee has the right to a determination by the Secretary of State that it is “not more likely than not that the extraditee will face torture.” In a habeas corpus proceeding, a court must find that right fully vindicated if the court receives a properly executed declaration from the Secretary of State “that she has complied with her obligations.”

(Filing Date: 06-08-2012)

Harris v. County of Orange

Administrative Law: Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the rule requiring a plaintiff to exhaust all administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit may be met where an individual class member files a complaint with the administrative agency; the filing need not be on behalf of the class as a whole.

(Filing Date: 06-08-2012)

Leavitt v. Arave

Civil Procedure: Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a defendant is not entitled to (1) relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, where counsel made a strategic choice to not call an expert witness, or (2) an order to compel a law enforcement agency to conduct forensic testing on evidence, where the defendant has not explained how the testing would support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

(Filing Date: 06-08-2012)

Riggs v. Prober & Raphael

Civil Law: A validation notice expressly requiring a consumer to dispute her debt in writing violates § 1692g(a)(3) of the FDCPA.

(Filing Date: 06-08-2012)

The Associated Press v. Otter

First Amendment: Under California First Amendment Coalition v. Woodford , the public enjoys a First Amendment right to view an entire execution, including the "initial procedures." Any limitation on this right must be "reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives."

(Filing Date: 06-08-2012)

United States v. Jingles

Criminal Procedure: An indictment found to be constructively amended does not require automatic reversal of a defendant's conviction under plain error review. A defendant's conviction only requires reversal if the constructive amendment seriously affects "the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings."

(Filing Date: 06-08-2012)

Thompson v. Lea

Habeas Corpus: Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, where a state supreme court reopens direct review such that a prisoner’s conviction is “again capable of modification through direct appeal,” the statute of limitations for the prisoner to file a habeas corpus petition does not begin to run until 90 days after termination of the state supreme court review.

(Filing Date: 06-07-2012)

Kaahumanu v. State of Hawaii

First Amendment: Where a permit to conduct commercial activities on a public forum imposes a condition allowing an official to revoke the permit at his or her sole discretion, such a condition violates the First Amendment because no adequate standards exist to guide the official’s decision and to render that decision subject to judicial review.

(Filing Date: 06-06-2012)

M.M. v. Lafayette School District

Administrative Law: In challenging an administrative proceeding under 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq ., the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a party may not seek review in district court until the ALJ makes a final decision as to all claims.

(Filing Date: 06-06-2012)

Xiong v. Felker

Habeas Corpus: Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a denial of a writ of habeas corpus challenging a state court conviction will only be reversed if the decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, federal law; or if the decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.

(Filing Date: 06-05-2012)

Hexcel Corp. v. Ineos Polymers

Civil Law: Although the statute of limitations in antitrust actions may be tolled if the defendant fraudulently concealed the cause of action in such a way that the plaintiff was unable to know it existed, Hexcel had constructive, if not actual notice, of its claims against BP Amoco long before the earliest possible date Hexcel’s claims could have accrued. Therefore, the doctrine of fraudulent concealment does not apply, and Hexcel’s claims against BP Amoco are time-barred under the applicable four-year statute of limitations.

(Filing Date: 06-01-2012)

Karuk Tribe of California v. USFS

Environmental Law: Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the Forest Service has a duty to consult a designated agency before approving a Notice of Intent for mining activity that could potentially affect a listed species.

(Filing Date: 06-01-2012)

Ludwig v. Astrue

Civil Procedure: Decisions must be made entirely on the basis of evidence adduced at the hearing, not, even in part, on private chats. “Receipt of ex parte communication [that goes to the heart of the case], assignment of some weight to it, and denial of a supplementary hearing to address it,” is error, requiring an evaluation of whether prejudice exists.

(Filing Date: 06-01-2012)

Nordyke v. King

Constitutional Law: With respect to a gun show on county property, an ordinance may impose a restriction requiring firearms to be affixed to a table without violating the Second Amendment.

(Filing Date: 06-01-2012)

United States v. Gomez-Hernandez

Sentencing: Under the two-prongs of Taylor, an attempt offense is a violent crime for the purposes of enhancement under USSG § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii), when the attempt offense is a categorical match with the generic offense, even if the offense underlying the attempt is not.

(Filing Date: 05-31-2012)

United States v. Perea-Rey

Constitutional Law: Under the Fourth Amendment's protections, agents do not need a warrant to observe inside the curtilage of the home but do need a warrant to enter into it. The "knock and talk" exception's constitutionality of curtilage entries is determined on whether “the officer’s actions are consistent with an attempt to initiate consensual contact with the occupants of the home" and not the "officer's subjective intent."

(Filing Date: 05-31-2012)

Flournoy v. Small

Constitutional Law: Federal law does not clearly establish a Confrontation Clause violation where the trial court allows a forensic expert to testify based on reports prepared by other analysts.

(Filing Date: 05-30-2012)

Lewis v. Ayers

Appellate Procedure: An interlocutory appeal for a competency determination in a habeas corpus case is not “an immediately appealable collateral order” because it is not conclusive, does not “resolve an important question separate from the merits” and is re-reviewable on appeal. A district court’s decision regarding a competency order is not clearly erroneous when “there are two permissible views of the evidence.”

(Filing Date: 05-30-2012)

United States v. Leal-Vega

Sentencing: Sentencing enhancements for illegal reentry by deported aliens can only be applied where the prior convictions are a specific violation written in the language of a state or federal statute.

(Filing Date: 05-30-2012)

Marsh v. County of San Diego

Constitutional Law: "The Constitution protects a parent's rights to control the physical remains, memory and images of a deceased child against unwarranted public exploitation by the government."

(Filing Date: 05-29-2012)

Ordonez v. United States

Criminal Procedure: Sovereign immunity bars a criminal defendant’s equitable claim for monetary damages under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g).

(Filing Date: 05-29-2012)

Schechner v. KPIX-TV

Employment Law: A plaintiff’s statistical evidence of age discrimination need not factor in legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for termination to meet the minimal burden of proof at step one of the McDonnell Douglas framework.

(Filing Date: 05-29-2012)

United States v. Johnson

Criminal Law: To obtain a conviction for knowingly making a false statement with respect to information required to be kept by a federally licensed firearms dealer under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A), the government need not prove that “the falsehood pertains to the lawfulness of the sale to the ultimate recipient.”

(Filing Date: 05-29-2012)

Native Village of Point Hope v. Salazar

Environmental Law: Where the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management does not act “arbitrarily or capriciously” in concluding that the description of an exploratory oil drilling plan satisfied the informational requirements of 30 C.F.R. § 550.213(d), the court will defer to the agency’s interpretation of its own regulations.

(Filing Date: 05-25-2012)

Snow v. McDaniel

42 USC § 1983: The district court incorrectly grants a defendant’s summary judgment motion where material issues of fact remain as to whether the denial of hip replacement surgery for a death-row inmate amounted to "deliberate indifference," in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights.

(Filing Date: 05-25-2012)

United States v. Harris

Criminal Procedure: A judge who did not preside over a trial abuses her discretion to proceed with sentencing when that judge is only familiar with the Presentence Investigation Report, and the trial judge’s absence is due to turmoil arising from the shooting of another judge.

(Filing Date: 05-25-2012)

Wilhelm v. Rotman

Civil Procedure: A party’s written consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge continues when a new magistrate is substituted for the initial magistrate assigned to the case.

(Filing Date: 05-25-2012)

Fenenbock v. Director of Corrections

Habeas Corpus: A defendant is not denied sufficient pretrial access to the prosecution’s primary witness where the witness is a minor, and an agency unrelated to the prosecution acts in the minor’s best interest and restricts the defendant’s access to the minor.

(Filing Date: 05-24-2012)

Nitschke v. Belleque

Habeas Corpus: A petitioner's Apprendi claim is procedurally defaulted when the petitioner fails to preserve the error at trial and the claim does not meet the "plain error" exception. Further, if a state appellate court’s analysis to determine plain error does not reach a petitioner's federal claim, the state court's judgment is not sufficiently interwoven with federal law and, therefore, a federal court is barred from reviewing the petitioner’s habeas petition.

(Filing Date: 05-24-2012)

United States v. Romo-Chavez

Evidence: The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment does not prohibit the introduction of a defendant's translated admissions to a police officer even if the translator would not qualify as a court interpreter.

(Filing Date: 05-23-2012)

Jimenez v. Franklin

Civil Procedure: Where a defendant is held jointly and severally liable for the whole amount of a judgment, the defendant may not be granted satisfaction of judgment for a payment made in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(2), a statute limiting liability of prisoners, when the defendant failed to raise the issue on appeal.

(Filing Date: 05-22-2012)

United States v. Carpenter

Criminal Law: 18 U.S.C. § 3509(a) defines "sexual abuse" for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3282's extended statute of limitations. A defendant must make his desire for self-representation known in a timely and unequivocal manner.

(Filing Date: 05-22-2012)

Alday v. Raytheon Company

Contract Law: When a collective bargaining agreement clearly establishes rights for eligible retired employees, their rights cannot be abrogated by clauses contained in an ERISA plan that is not incorporated into the collective bargaining agreement.

(Filing Date: 05-21-2012)

James v. City of Costa Mesa

Disability Law: Medical marijuana use is not protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

(Filing Date: 05-21-2012)

Pom Wonderful v. Coca-Cola Co.

Administrative Law: Juice producers/bottlers may not state a false-advertising claim under the Lanham Act because the FDA and FDCA regulate how manufacturers may name and label its juices.

(Filing Date: 05-17-2012)

Rodgers v. Marshall

Criminal Procedure: A criminal defendant’s request for representation to file a post-verdict new trial motion is a “critical stage” under the Sixth Amendment and thus allows for a right to counsel, and that denying such representation because a defendant waived his right to counsel previously is a violation of established federal law.

(Filing Date: 05-17-2012)

United States v. Cervantes

Constitutional Law: Under the Fourth Amendment, the automobile and the community care exceptions to the warrant requirement for a search only apply if there is: (1) probable cause not based on conclusory observations and (2) the government sustains the heavy burden of demonstrating a valid caretaking reason for a vehicle to be impounded and searched.

(Filing Date: 05-16-2012)

Lopez v. Brewer

Constitutional Law: Under Arizona’s lethal injection protocol, difficulties in inserting the peripheral line in a prisoner’s hand, the femoral central line, and repeated abortive IV line placement efforts do not constitute an “objectively intolerable risk of pain,” and therefore do not violate the Eighth Amendment.

(Filing Date: 05-15-2012)

Lopez v. Ryan

Habeas Corpus: “Inadequate assistance of counsel at initial-review collateral proceedings may establish cause for a prisoner’s procedural default of a claim of ineffective assistance at trial” where the prisoner establishes that “the underlying ineffective assistance claim is a substantial one.”

(Filing Date: 05-15-2012)

SEC v. Jasper

Evidence: A trial court may properly exclude hearsay statements that are admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1) where the “trial court simply considered it unfair to present a version of an unavailable witness’s testimony without an opportunity to cross-examine directly.”

(Filing Date: 05-15-2012)

Oman v. Portland Public Schools

Education Law: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., does not provide a cause of action for nominal damages.

(Filing Date: 05-14-2012)

Sexton v. Cozner

Habeas Corpus: Where a petitioner fails to prove that his trial counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient, the petitioner’s post-conviction relief counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim in state court. Thus, the petitioner does not meet the requirements under Martinez to excuse his procedurally defaulted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel not raised in state court.

(Filing Date: 05-13-2012)

United States v. Hieng

Evidence: A defendant’s failure to object to the admission of statements made during a proffer meeting “may be reasonably interpreted as indicating that the defendant previously waived his rights under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(f) and Federal Rule of Evidence 410,” and a defendant has no right to confront an interpreter where the interpreted statement “may be fairly attributed directly to the [original] speaker.”

(Filing Date: 05-11-2012)

Renee v. Duncan

Education Law: Before Congress amended the Continuing Appropriations Act by adding Section 163, which temporarily expands the definition of “highly qualified teacher” under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the challenged federal regulation characterizing an alternative-route teacher who has not obtained full state certification as a “highly qualified teacher" violates the NCLB. However, so long as Section 163 is in effect, the challenged regulation is consistent with the NCLB.

(Filing Date: 05-10-2012)

Thomas v. Chappell

Habeas Corpus: When a defense attorney unreasonably fails to investigate and locate witnesses to corroborate a witness’s critical testimony and support the primary defense strategy of third-party culpability in a difficult-to-decide case, such performance prejudices the defendant.

(Filing Date: 05-10-2012)

United States v. Vallee

Criminal Procedure: A summons to revoke a defendant's supervised release is valid to extend the court's jurisdiction to conduct a delayed revocation hearing under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i) when the summons is signed and issued by a clerk at the direction of a judge.

(Filing Date: 05-10-2012)

United States v. Zhou

Criminal Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-6(a)(2) contains two separate elements necessary for a violation: a person must (1) knowingly obtain individually identifiable health information relating to an individual and (2) use that information in a manner inconsistent with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

(Filing Date: 05-10-2012)

Wood v. San Diego

Constitutional Law: A pension plan that has a disparate impact with respect to sex does not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so long as the pension plan is facially neutral.

(Filing Date: 05-09-2012)

Karl v. City of Mountain Terrace

Civil Law: Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, where a public employee gives subpoenaed deposition testimony in the course of a § 1983 lawsuit, a supervisor whose subsequent retaliatory conduct causes the termination of the employee does not have qualified immunity, even if the supervisor did not have final authority to terminate the employee.

(Filing Date: 05-08-2012)

Ward v. Chavez

Civil Procedure: First, when exhaustion is futile, the exhaustion requirement should be waived. Second, under the MVRA, where a defendant is unable to pay restitution immediately, a court may not order immediate repayment because such an order impermissibly delegates the setting a repayment schedule to the Bureau of Prisons or Probation.

(Filing Date: 05-08-2012)

Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki

Administrative Law: The district court lacked jurisdiction to hear whether the procedures for veterans’ mental health services and service-related disability claims with the Department of Veteran’s Affairs violates due process and a statutory duty to provide timely care. The district court did have jurisdiction to consider if the Regional Office’s non-adversarial adjudication of disability claims satisfied due process and properly held that it did.

(Filing Date: 05-07-2012)

Crosby v. Schwartz

Habeas Corpus: Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a denial of a writ of habeas corpus is reviewed under an extremely deferential standard and the denial will only be reversed if: the decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, federal law; or if the decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.

(Filing Date: 05-04-2012)

Henry A. v. Willden

Juvenile Law: The 2 exceptions--"special relationship" and "state-created danger"--to the general rule that Due Process does not impose affirmative duties on the government should not be read too narrowly when evaluating claims that a state failed to provide basic rights of safety and proper medical care to foster children.

(Filing Date: 05-04-2012)

Nedds v. Calderon

Habeas Corpus: Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for a habeas corpus claim when the petitioner relies on circuit court precedent, even if that precedent is later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

(Filing Date: 05-04-2012)

Estate of Morgens v. CIR

Trusts and Estates: “Gift taxes paid by the donee trustees of a Qualifying Terminable Interest in Property (QTIP) trust, based on a 26 U.S.C. § 2519 deemed inter vivos transfer of the QTIP property within three years of the donor’s death, must be included in the transferor’s gross estate under the so-called “gross-up rule” of § 2035(b).”

(Filing Date: 05-03-2012)

Beltran v. Astrue

Disability Law: For purposes of determining whether a claimant is “disabled” and thus qualified for benefits under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, “a significant number” of jobs does not exist “where the jobs were ‘very rare’ or generally unavailable to the claimant due to [her] limitations.”

(Filing Date: 05-02-2012)

Detrich v. Ryan

Habeas Corpus: A petition for habeas corpus on a penalty-phase ineffective assistance of counsel claim is granted when: the state post-conviction court unreasonably applied federal law and the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.

(Filing Date: 05-02-2012)

Padilla v. Yoo

Civil Law: A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless, at the time of their actions, the law is "sufficiently clear that every reasonable government official would have understood that what he was doing violated the plaintiff's rights."

(Filing Date: 05-02-2012)

United States v. Dorsey

Evidence: Witness testimony tending to prove that the defendant had the means to commit a crime is not within the scope of inadmissible evidence involving “prior bad acts.”

(Filing Date: 04-30-2012)

Buckwalter v. Nevada Board of Medical Examiners

42 USC § 1983: When exercising its summary suspension powers, the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners is performing a function "comparable to a judicial act" and is afforded absolute immunity from liability.

(Filing Date: 04-26-2012)

Crowley v. State of Nevada

42 USC § 1983: An enforcement action under 42 USC § 1983 is not available where § 301 of the Help America Vote Act provides no cause of action to challenge recount procedures in elections for local office.

(Filing Date: 04-26-2012)

United States v. Backlund

Administrative Law: A defendant in a criminal proceeding based on the Forest Service’s administrative decision may obtain judicial review of a final agency action by filing suit in a federal district court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), or challenging the decision in a subsequent criminal proceeding, so long as either action is filed within the APA’s six-year statute of limitations.

(Filing Date: 04-26-2012)

Rivas v. Napolitano

Appellate Procedure: Under the Mandamus Act and 22 C.F.R. § 42.81(e), a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to review a consular refusal to reconsider an application for an immigrant visa when the request was properly submitted and included evidence that tended to disprove the grounds for refusal.

(Filing Date: 04-25-2012)

United States v. Apel

Criminal Law: Under 18 U.S.C. § 1382, a defendant cannot be convicted of trespass to an area where the federal government has granted an easement for a public roadway such that the federal government no longer has an exclusive right of possession over the area.

(Filing Date: 04-25-2012)

Western Watersheds v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior

Administrative Law: Under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) and Hudson , a prevailing party is not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees incurred in administrative proceedings that concluded before the commencement of the district court action.

(Filing Date: 04-25-2012)

United States v. Milovanovic

Criminal Law: Under 18 U.S.C. §§1341 and 1346, a fiduciary duty “need not be formal, or classic.” Rather, a material breach of “a comparable duty of loyalty, trust, and confidence, … with the intent to defraud, deprives the victim of the intangible right to honest services.” Foreseeable risk of economic harm is not a necessary element of the Mail Fraud Statute; instead a materiality test is required to evaluate fraudulent intent and a showing of materiality.

(Filing Date: 04-24-2012)

In Re Jacobson

Bankruptcy Law: The homestead exemption requirement of reinvestment of proceeds applies to homestead sales that occur after a bankruptcy judgment has already been entered.

(Filing Date: 04-23-2012)

Meras v. Sisto

Habeas Corpus: A state court’s admission of a non-testifying expert’s lab report into evidence on the basis that it is not “testimonial” under Crawford is not “an unreasonable application of Federal law,” and therefore does not trigger a defendant’s right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment.

(Filing Date: 04-23-2012)

Robles-Urrea v. Holder

Immigration: Misprision of a felony is not categorically a crime involving moral turpitude which would qualify a resident alien for removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).

(Filing Date: 04-23-2012)

Noble v. Adams

Habeas Corpus: For purposes of tolling the statute of limitations, a district court must determine what is a reasonable time to appeal a petition for writ of habeas corpus or whether a delay is excusable, under applicable state law.

(Filing Date: 04-19-2012)

Cross v. Sisto

Habeas Corpus: A federal habeas corpus claim should not be found untimely when it is properly filed under California law and statutory tolling is correctly applied.

(Filing Date: 04-18-2012)

United States v. Austin

Sentencing: To qualify for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the (C) agreement must either explicitly allow the court to apply sentencing guideline ranges or clearly show that the specific term of the agreement was based on sentencing ranges.

(Filing Date: 04-18-2012)

Balla v. State of Idaho

Attorney Fees: Under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, fees can be awarded to an attorney for his efforts in monitoring relief after a party has won a judgment, as long as “the fee was directly and reasonably incurred in enforcing the relief ordered for the violation”.

(Filing Date: 04-17-2012)

Gonzalez v. Arizona

Constitutional Law: The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 preempts a state law requirement that proof of citizenship be presented for voter registration. Under the U.S. Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a state law may require voters provide identification at the polls in order to vote.

(Filing Date: 04-17-2012)

In re Pacific Pictures

Civil Procedure: A party cannot assert "selective waiver" of attorney-client privilege when the party discloses privileged documents to the government because it is inconsistent with serving societal interests and it is not a new privilege that Congress is willing to adopt.

(Filing Date: 04-17-2012)

Stengel v. Medtronic Inc.

Preemption: A claim under state law challenging the safety of medical equipment given premarket approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is preempted by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) if the state law provides a requirement “different from” FDCA requirements. Further, a plaintiff’s claim of injury based on a medical equipment manufacturer’s failure to report information to the FDA is invalid, because the FDCA does not provide a private right of action.

(Filing Date: 04-16-2012)

United States v. Swank

Sentencing: A two-level enhancement in sentencing is appropriate when the defendant is convicted of Abusive Sexual Contact under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2244(a)(5), 1153(a), and was in a care-taking, parent-like relationship with the victim.

(Filing Date: 04-16-2012)

United States v. Goodbear

Sentencing: For purposes of applying a two-level enhancement under USSG § 3B1.4, the use of a minor by another person can be attributed to a defendant who knew or should have known that the person would use the minor to lie to authorities.

(Filing Date: 04-13-2012)

United States v. Kelly

Criminal Law: Peace and disarmament activists cannot trespass and destroy government property and claim protection from an international treaty, because when an international treaty conflicts with another federal law, the more recent of the two controls. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1363, “malicious” is defined under common law as having (1) intent to commit the prohibited act, and (2) no justification or excuse.

(Filing Date: 04-13-2012)

Brown v. Ahern

Habeas Corpus: A federal district court shall abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a pre-conviction habeas petition asserting a Speedy Trial claim as an affirmative defense to state prosecution, except in “cases of extraordinary circumstances.”

(Filing Date: 04-12-2012)

Minority Television Project v. FCC

First Amendment: The ban on public broadcasters’ transmission of public issue and political advertisements under 47 U.S.C. § 399b fails intermediate scrutiny and thus violates the First Amendment, because the government failed to prove that its fear of harm to the substantial interest of ensuring high-quality educational public broadcasting is “real, not merely conjectural.”

(Filing Date: 04-12-2012)

Samper v. Providence St. Vincent

Disability Law: Where a job requires an employee’s on-site presence to maintain other essential functions, like teamwork or face-to-face interactions with patients, regular attendance is an essential function of employment, and therefore cannot be exempted by a disability accommodation.

(Filing Date: 04-11-2012)

United States v. Nosal

Civil Law: The Court held that “exceeds authorized access” in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 18 U.S.C. § 1030 “is limited to violations of restrictions on access to information, and not restrictions on its use.”

(Filing Date: 04-10-2012)

L.A. Printex Industries, Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc.

Copyright: A genuine issue of material fact exists (1) as to whether Defendants had access to a fabric design when 50,000 yards of the fabric were sold in the area and (2) as to substantial similarity where the two designs had similar arrangements of floral elements.

(Filing Date: 04-09-2012)

Moss v. U.S. Secret Service

Constitutional Law: Under the First Amendment, officers or agents are not entitled to qualified immunity when there is facial viewpoint discrimination or prevention of demonstration of opposing views. Under the Fourth Amendment, the plaintiff must establish a plausible claim specifically against an individual in order for the claim to move forward.

(Filing Date: 04-09-2012)

Oklevueha Native American v. Holder

Constitutional Law: When asserting a claim for prospective relief, a plaintiff has a justiciable case and controversy for constitutional and statutory entitlement to use marijuana in religious practice if enforcement or prosecution has already occurred, regardless of whether criminal charges resulted from that enforcement action.

(Filing Date: 04-09-2012)

United States v. Wilbur

Indian Law: In a Cigarette Tax Contract (“CTC”), the state’s retrocession of taxes applies only to the sale of cigarettes by licensed “Indian retailers”, as defined in the CTC. The sale of untaxed, unstamped, “contraband” cigarettes on tribal land is a violation of the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (“CCTA”).

(Filing Date: 04-06-2012)

United States v. Manzo

Criminal Procedure: The failure of counsel to advise a defendant to withdraw from a plea bargain is deemed ineffective counsel if there is still time to withdraw and it becomes clear that the sentence will be significantly greater than expected because there was a mutual mistake in predicting the sentence.

(Filing Date: 04-05-2012)

Schneider v. McDaniel

Habeas Corpus: Claims in amended habeas petitions must "arise out of a common core of operative facts" from the original petition's claims.

(Filing Date: 04-04-2012)

United States v. Onyesoh

Criminal Law: The government must show some proof of the usability of an unauthorized access device, such as expired credit card numbers, when its use is not readily apparent.

(Filing Date: 04-04-2012)

Arbid v. Holder

Immigration: Where an immigration judge finds that an alien committed a “particularly serious crime” based on the Frentescu factors, that alien will be ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). Further, where there has been a favorable change in the foreign country’s political regime, the alien will be ineligible for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17(a).

(Filing Date: 04-03-2012)

Ben-Sholom v. Ayers

Habeas Corpus: A defendant who fails to show prejudice by counsel’s failure to present a state of mind defense does not establish a right to habeas relief, and therefore is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during the guilt-phase of trial.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2012)

Coalition To Defend v. Brown

Constitutional Law: Prohibiting preferential treatment on the basis of race or ethnicity in the public education system does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2012)

Molina v. Astrue

Disability Law: Where adverse credibility of a claimant’s testimony is established in determining whether the claimant is “disabled” under the Social Security Act, the same "specific, clear, and convincing reasons" for rejecting the claimant’s testimony apply with equal force to lay witness testimony conveying similar evidence. Failure to comment on such lay testimony is harmless error.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2012)

Wentzell v. Neven

Habeas Corpus: Under § 2244(b) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, when a defendant files two petitions for writ of habeas corpus, the latter petition is not “second or successive” where an amended judgment intervenes between the filing of the two habeas petitions.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2012)

Brantley v. NBC Universal, Inc.

Civil Law: To state a valid claim under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, a plaintiff must plead facts that show actual injury to competition. It is not enough to allege a reduction of consumer choice or increased prices without demonstrating actual anticompetitive effects.

(Filing Date: 03-30-2012)

United States v. Major

Sentencing: Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), “when [a] district court does not have sufficient information to determine the order in which the jury made determinations of guilt during jury deliberations on multiple counts, it must order the convictions so that the mandatory minimum sentence is minimized.”

(Filing Date: 03-27-2012)

United States v. Rodrigues

Post-Conviction Relief: A conviction for theft of honest services, based on a jury instruction lacking a kickback element, prior to the Supreme Court case Skilling v. United States is not in error if the record contains no evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with regard to the new element.

(Filing Date: 03-27-2012)

Bagdasarian Productions v. Twentieth Century Fox

Alternative Dispute Resolution: An appellate court does not have jurisdiction where a district court has “entered a stay, pending [a California Code of Civil Procedure §] 638 reference,” so long as (1) the opposing party will not be “put out of court” and (2) the “collateral order doctrine” does not apply.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2012)

In re: Kekauoha-Alisa

Civil Law: Under Hawaii state law, strict compliance with foreclosure procedure is required to not void foreclosure sale. Even where a violation of strict compliance establishes unfair business practices, a claimant must establish a causal connection between the procedural violations and her injuries.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2012)

United States v. Nguyen

Criminal Procedure: A search warrant is validly issued if there is a “‘fair probability’ that a crime has been committed.”

(Filing Date: 03-23-2012)

Peng v. Holder

Immigration: Irrespective of whether an alien pleaded guilty or proceeded to trial, an alien convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude before the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act is eligible for waiver of deportation under § 212 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

(Filing Date: 03-22-2012)

R & R Sails, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania

Civil Procedure: Where a court precludes evidence as a sanction for discovery requirement violations and such preclusion amounts to the dismissal of the party’s claim, a court must consider whether the failure to comply involved willfulness, fault, or bad faith, and also the availability of lesser sanctions.

(Filing Date: 03-21-2012)

Taproot Administrative Services v. CIR

Tax Law: A taxpayer is ineligible for S corporation status where the sole shareholder of the S corporation is a custodial Roth IRA, because a Roth IRA does not qualify as an individual and the IRA's tax deferral scheme would allow a taxpayer to avoid all taxation on S corporation profits.

(Filing Date: 03-21-2012)

Benson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank

Civil Law: The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 bars claims asserted against a purchasing bank when the claim is based on the conduct of the failed institution, but does not bar claims based on the purchasing bank’s own acts.

(Filing Date: 03-20-2012)

Coneff v. AT & T Corp.

Preemption: The Federal Arbitration Act preempts the Washington State law that invalidates a class-action waiver in arbitration agreements.

(Filing Date: 03-16-2012)

Phillips v. Ornoski

Habeas Corpus: A prosecutor violates his or her duty to correct false testimony under Napue when he or she makes a deal with the attorney of a key witness, asks the attorney not to disclose the deal to the witness, then use the witness’s testimony and lack of direct knowledge of the deal as evidence that the prosecution made no promise in exchange for their testimony.

(Filing Date: 03-16-2012)

Skinner v. Northrop Grumman Retirement

Civil Law: There are no equitable remedies of reformation or surcharge available when an administrative committee provides retirement summary plan descriptions that are inconsistent with the plan master documents unless there is evidence of fraud, mistake, unjust enrichment, or actual harm.

(Filing Date: 03-16-2012)

Salt River Project v. Lee

Civil Procedure: Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, an Indian Tribe protected by sovereign immunity is not considered a necessary or indispensable party, when a tribal official adequately represents the group’s interest in the action and complete relief could be accorded “among the existing parties without the tribe.”

(Filing Date: 03-15-2012)

Western Radio Services v. Qwest Corp.

Administrative Law: Based on a new report and order from the Federal Communications Commission, when a call is originated and terminated in the same Major Trading Area it is considered local, and the involvement of an interexchange carrier does not affect the obligation of reciprocal compensation.

(Filing Date: 03-15-2012)

Alliance For The Wild Rockies v. Salazar

Constitutional Law: Congress does not violate the separation of powers doctrine when it changes the particular law applicable to pending litigation, as long as the amendment does not direct the court to make particular findings of fact or to order certain outcomes.

(Filing Date: 03-14-2012)

Angle v. Miller

Civil Law: Ballot initiative legislation that requires initiative proponents to obtain signatures equal to 10 percent of the registered voters in the prior general election from each of a states congressional districts, does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause or the First Amendment.

(Filing Date: 03-14-2012)

Otay Land Co. v. United Enterprises

Civil Procedure: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1919, when a case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, a court may award “just costs,” which are to be determined by an analysis of what is fair and equitable under the totality of the circumstances.

(Filing Date: 03-14-2012)

Sharrock v. United States

Tort Law: A naval officer is not acting within the line of duty when traveling between work and a recreational activity encouraged by the Navy. As such, respondeat superior does not apply in this situation.

(Filing Date: 03-14-2012)

Turtle Island Restoration v. Hawaii Longline

Administrative Law: The district court does not abuse its discretion by approving a consent decree when (1) it does not make substantive changes to regulations, (2) there is no clearly erroneous fact finding and (3) the decree is “fair, reasonable and adequate and does not violate public policy.”

(Filing Date: 03-14-2012)

United States v. Del Toro-Barboza

Sentencing: Under U.S.S.G. § 2S1.3(a)(2), no showing of “loss to the public” is necessary to justify a sentencing enhancement when the underlying offense is a violation of 31 U.S.C. §§ 5332 or 5324.

(Filing Date: 03-14-2012)

Shannahan v. Internal Revenue Service

Civil Law: The IRS properly denied a Freedom of Information Act request from an attorney, representing fugitives, who was seeking information related to his client's civil case because disclosure would seriously undermine the Federal Tax Administration and would interfere with law enforcement purposes.

(Filing Date: 03-13-2012)

United States v. King

Criminal Procedure: Where a condition of a defendant’s probation allows for a warrantless search at “any time of the day or night, with or without probable cause,” police may lawfully execute a warrantless search even if they do not have “reasonable suspicion.”

(Filing Date: 03-13-2012)

Anderson v. Holder

Immigration: For the purposes of naturalization, the laws of the state in which a child was domiciled prior to reaching twenty-one years of age determine paternity.

(Filing Date: 03-12-2012)

Skydive Arizona v. Quattrocchi

Civil Law: A district court, in its discretion, can enter judgment for any sum above the amount found as actual damages, not exceeding three times such amount, however, such sum shall constitute compensation and not a penalty.

(Filing Date: 03-12-2012)

United States v. Ressam

Sentencing: The decrease in sentencing of convicted terrorist, Ahmed Ressam, by the district court was "substantially unreasonable" taking into account his recantation of testimony, public safety, and deterrence. The district court failed to justify the variance from the Sentencing Guidelines calculation.

(Filing Date: 03-12-2012)

Conner v. Heiman

Civil Procedure: When the material facts are undisputed by the parties and the dispute is only what inferences may properly be drawn from the facts, a court must decide the question of qualified immunity as a matter of law; a jury's possible finding that more reasonable inferences may have been drawn from the facts is irrelevant if the court finds that defendants acted on reasonable conclusions based upon the circumstances and settled law.

(Filing Date: 03-09-2012)

Cruz v. International Collection Corp.

Civil Law: A debt collection agency violates the FDCPA when it (1) uses false, deceptive, or misleading representation when attempting to collect a debt, or (2) contacts a debtor who has notified the creditor, in writing, of refusal to pay the debt. An individual may personally violate the FDCPA if he qualifies as a debt collector and took action that violated the FDCPA.

(Filing Date: 03-08-2012)

Pizzuto v. Blades

Habeas Corpus: Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2), a second or successive habeas petition, including petitioners sentenced to death, the petitioner must show by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder could have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.

(Filing Date: 03-08-2012)

Kilgore v. KeyBank, Nat'l Ass'n

Preemption: The Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law when enforcing arbitration agreements in contracts; unless there is some reason to revoke the contract.

(Filing Date: 03-07-2012)

United States v. Whitney

Sentencing: A breach of a plea agreement by the government occurs when, as part of the plea bargain the government promises (1) not to divulge information disclosed during cooperation with the government and (2) to urge a sentence at the low-end of the guidelines, and then at sentencing the prosecution divulges the admissions and provides arguments for the sentencing judge regarding the seriousness of the defendant's criminal history.

(Filing Date: 03-07-2012)

Wagner v. County of Maricopa

Evidence: The Court reviews evidentiary rulings and allows out of court statements where they are introduced to show the declarant's state of mind.

(Filing Date: 03-07-2012)

Klestadt & Winters v. Cangelosi

Bankruptcy Law: A "sanctions order issued by the district court sitting in bankruptcy, whether supported by the district court's inherent powers or Rule 9011 [of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure], [is] not an appealable collateral order."

(Filing Date: 03-06-2012)

Oyeniran v. Holder

Immigration: The Board of Immigration Appeals is bound to its prior determinations of past incidents of government-sponsored violence under collateral estoppel, and it abuses its discretion when it fails to reopen a proceeding when the petitioner presents new evidence that is sufficient, dramatic, and compelling.

(Filing Date: 03-06-2012)

United States v. Lequire

Criminal Law: Under Arizona law, a contract between an insurance agency and insurance company that “permitted agency commingling, required monthly agency payments whether premiums were collected or not, and created a right to interest on late payments” results in a creditor-debtor relationship, not a trust. Thus, if no trust property exists, there can be no crime of embezzlement since the alleged victim did not own the funds allegedly embezzled.

(Filing Date: 03-05-2012)

United States v. Loughner

Criminal Procedure: A pre-trial detainee, while under commitment to try and render him competent to stand trial, may be forcibly medicated under Harper because he is dangerous to himself or others.

(Filing Date: 03-05-2012)

Emeldi v. University of Oregon

Civil Law: To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a plaintiff who does not have direct evidence of retaliation must show that (1) the plaintiff engaged in protected activity, (2) the plaintiff suffered an adverse action, and (3) there was a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action.

(Filing Date: 03-02-2012)

San Luis v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior

Administrative Law: In failing to apply certain releases against the 800,000 acre feet of water specifically designated for fish, wildlife, and habitat restoration within California's Central Valley Project, the Department of the Interior did not abuse its discretion so as to invalidate its actions under the Administrative Procedure Act.

(Filing Date: 03-02-2012)

State of Nevada v. Bank of America Corp.

Civil Procedure: For purposes of the minimal diversity requirement under the Class Action Fairness Act, the court will examine “the essential nature and effect of the proceeding as it appears from the entire record” in determining whether the state is the real party in interest in a state Attorney General parens patriae action.

(Filing Date: 03-02-2012)

James v. Ryan

Habeas Corpus: Where the defendant was sentenced to death, capital defense counsel’s assistance was ineffective during sentencing where counsel failed to introduce mitigating evidence of the defendant’s extensive childhood exposure to violence, drug abuse, poverty, and sexually predatory adults, and of his history of drug abuse, suicide attempts, and mental illness.

(Filing Date: 02-29-2012)

Pimentel v. Dreyfus

Constitutional Law: The district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the State of Washington from terminating a state-funded food assistance program for legal immigrants not qualifying for the federal food assistance program, because plaintiffs failed to show they were likely to succeed on the merits of their due process and equal protection claims.

(Filing Date: 02-29-2012)

Rohit v. Holder

Immigration: For purposes of determining whether an alien is deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), disorderly conduct involving prostitution under § 647(b) of the California Penal Code is a crime involving moral turpitude.

(Filing Date: 02-29-2012)

United States v. Bolivar

Criminal Procedure: Motley v. Parks did not overrule United States v. Davis , which requires reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, that property is “owned, controlled, or possessed by probationer, in order for the item to fall within the permissible bounds of a probation search.”

(Filing Date: 02-29-2012)

United States v. White

Criminal Procedure: A district court’s failure to hold a second or subsequent competency hearing sua sponte is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and a defendant is competent to stand trial if he understands the nature of the charges and consequences of the proceedings against him, and has the ability to assist in his defense.

(Filing Date: 02-29-2012)

Bowers v. Whitman

Constitutional Law: The State of Oregon did not commit a taking, when the Oregon voters enacted Measure 49, because owner’s property had not vested. Further Measure 49 did not violate procedural due process or equal protection rights because the measure did not implicate fundamental rights and was not based on a suspect class.

(Filing Date: 02-28-2012)

Moormann v. Schriro

Habeas Corpus: A death row inmate is not entitled to a stay of execution under Atkins when they allege that they have become mentally retarded after the offense, because there is no "clearly established law" that a person who was not mentally retarded at the time of the crime or trial may be immune from capital punishment under Atkins, "because of subsequent mental deterioration."

(Filing Date: 02-27-2012)

Towery v. Brewer

Criminal Procedure: For an injunction halting an execution to be granted based on Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations, a plaintiff must show that the execution protocol was likely to subject the plaintiff to cruel and unusual punishment, and that the protocol would result in disparate treatment in which the plaintiff was treated differently and detrimentally.

(Filing Date: 02-27-2012)

Towery v. Ryan

Habeas Corpus: An attorney did not abandon his client by failing to raise a colorable claim on a habeas corpus petition when considering all the circumstances the attorney's behavior did not breach the duty of loyalty.

(Filing Date: 02-27-2012)

Haskell v. Harris

Constitutional Law: California Penal Code statute requiring DNA samples to be taken from all felony arrestees does not violate the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution given the diminished expectation of privacy in a felony arrestee and the compelling governmental interests in identification, solving crimes, preventing crimes, and exoneration.

(Filing Date: 02-23-2012)

Movesesian v. Victoria Versicherung AG

Preemption: Section 354.4 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which grants state courts jurisdiction over insurance claims by Armenian Genocide Victims, is preempted under the foreign affairs doctrine.

(Filing Date: 02-23-2012)

Mardesich v. Cate

Habeas Corpus: The statute of limitations on claims under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) is calculated on a claim-by-claim basis, and the AEDPA statute of limitations on a challenge to an administrative decision begins when the administrative decision is final.

(Filing Date: 02-21-2012)

United States v. Louis

Civil Law: A defendant, in a civil forfeiture suit, cannot use the Fifth Amendment "as both a sword and shield" by refusing to answer interrogatory discovery requests containing necessary elements to establish the defendant's Article III standing.

(Filing Date: 02-21-2012)

Latter-Singh v. Holder

Immigration: California Penal Code § 422 is “categorically a crime of moral turpitude” and aliens convicted of such a crime are therefore subject to removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I).

(Filing Date: 02-17-2012)

Putnam Family Partnership v. Yucaipa

Municipal Law: The requisite intent to provide housing for seniors under the “senior exemption” exception to prohibitions on discriminatory housing policies in the Fair Housing Amendments Act and Housing for Older Persons Act can be that of a city in passing a zoning ordinance, and is not limited to the intent of a housing provider.

(Filing Date: 02-17-2012)

Turtle Island Restoration Network v. US Dep't of State

Civil Procedure: A certification process that gives rise to an allegation on an annual basis does not defeat claim preclusion each year when a party has already had an opportunity to litigate the issue.

(Filing Date: 02-17-2012)

Range Road Music v. East Coast Foods

Copyright: Observation of public performance of copyrighted songs is within the acceptable purview of lay opinion and will alone suffice as evidence of copyright infringement because there need not be a showing of "'substantial similarity; between the publicly performed compositions and the copyrighted works" where such evidence is available to show "that the public performances entailed direct copying."

(Filing Date: 02-16-2012)

Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard

Civil Procedure: To state a claim for relief under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair Competition Act, a plaintiff must show that a causal connection exists between the alleged design defect and the alleged safety hazard, and that the manufacturer had knowledge of the safety hazard at the time of sale.

(Filing Date: 02-16-2012)

Naify Revocable Trust v. United States

Tax Law: The value of a California income tax claim becomes certain when the parties settle the claim and the amount of the settlement is the value of the claim against the estate of a decedent.

(Filing Date: 02-15-2012)

Leigh v. Salazar

First Amendment: The Press-Enterprise II qualified right of access balancing test applies to media access to a government run horse roundup because the test balances the media’s ability to monitor all government activities not just criminal proceedings.

(Filing Date: 02-14-2012)

United States v. Polar Star

Contract Law: A federal government action for a taking, concurrent with a notice to renew a lease upon that same property, may be dismissed if the government's lease is renewed and there is a possessory right in the property. Other terms to that lease renewal, such as the price of the lease are within the sole jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.

(Filing Date: 02-14-2012)

Hunt v. County of Orange

First Amendment: Demotion and placing an inferior officer on administrative leave, because the officer campaigned against and alleged corruption against the superior officer is not constitutional. However, the superior officer may have qualified immunity if they reasonably but mistakenly believe political loyalty was required by the inferior officer.

(Filing Date: 02-13-2012)

United States v. Yeung

Sentencing: It is insufficient to rely upon the outstanding principal balance as the basis for restitution in calculating a restitution award under the Mandatory Victims Restitution of Act of 1996, when the victim is a loan purchaser and not the loan originator. In addition, the proper valuation for returned collateral is the market value at time the victim takes possession, not the amount the victim is able to sell the property for at a later date.

(Filing Date: 02-13-2012)

Watison v. Carter

Constitutional Law: To claim violation of the “First Amendment right to file a grievance against prison officials and to be free from retaliation for doing so,” a prisoner must allege that (a) filing a grievance is protected conduct; (b) defendant took adverse actions; (c) the grievance precipitated those actions; (d) the actions “would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities”; and (e) the actions “did not advance legitimate goals of the correctional institution,” because they were arbitrary and capricious or “unnecessary to the maintenance of order in the institution.”

(Filing Date: 02-13-2012)

ACLU v. Masto

Constitutional Law: Sex offender regulation schemes expanding the scope of notice and registration and applying retroactively, do not necessarily offend the Double Jeopardy or Ex Post Facto clauses of the Constitution.

(Filing Date: 02-10-2012)

Beets v. County of Los Angeles

Civil Law: Under Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994), a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim is barred where the issue has already been considered and decided in another proceeding with a sufficient community of interest to the current proceeding.

(Filing Date: 02-10-2012)

Adams v. USFS

Administrative Law: The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act unambiguously prohibits the Unites States Forest Service from charging recreational park users an amenity fee solely for parking or using the undeveloped areas of a Park.

(Filing Date: 02-09-2012)

Gomez Zarate v. Holder

Immigration: Removal from the United States after a criminal proceeding, even if not in front of a Immigration Judge, is enough to break the continuous and uninterrupted presence requirement on an application for cancellation of removal.

(Filing Date: 02-09-2012)

In the Matter of SK Foods

Bankruptcy Law: A bankruptcy court's order denying the removal of a trustee and return of records is not a final order, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear issues on appeal involving interlocutory orders.

(Filing Date: 02-09-2012)

Metabolic Research v. Ferrell

Civil Procedure: A motion to dismiss under anti-SLAPP statutes must meet the criteria applicable to the collateral order doctrine in order to be immediately reviewable as an interlocutory appeal.

(Filing Date: 02-09-2012)

Save The Peaks Coalition v. USFS

Civil Procedure: A gross abuse of the judicial process occurs and laches apply when "new" plaintiffs appear four years later after litigation had already been commenced by other plaintiffs, however laches does not apply when defendants cannot demonstrate that they have suffered prejudice.

(Filing Date: 02-09-2012)

Skilstaf v. CVS Caremark Corp.

Civil Procedure: A class member is precluded from filing a second class action suit when the member was (1) a party to a prior settlement agreement containing an applicable covenant not sue, and (2) the class member had full notice and an opportunity to object or withdraw from the prior settlement agreement.

(Filing Date: 02-09-2012)

Ibrahim v. DHS

Constitutional Law: Although the plaintiff was a citizen of Malaysia, and not a U.S. citizen, she has established a significant voluntary connection with the United States as a Ph.D. student, which would allow for her to bring constitutional claims in United States courts.

(Filing Date: 02-08-2012)

McOmie-Gray v. Bank of America

Civil Procedure: Under U.S.C. § 1635(f), regardless of whether the parties have notice or agreed otherwise, suits for rescission must be filed within three years of signing the loan agreement.

(Filing Date: 02-08-2012)

Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics

Civil Procedure: Under California's choice of law framework, parties' choice of Georgia law to govern an employment agreement is unenforceable because Georgia law is contrary to a fundamental policy of California and California has a materially greater interest in the case.

(Filing Date: 02-08-2012)

United States v. Kimsey

Criminal Procedure: Title 18 U.S.C. § 402 creates a statutory right to a jury trial in a criminal contempt proceeding, and a violation of local court rules, “cannot serve as a predicate for criminal convictions under that statute.”

(Filing Date: 02-08-2012)

Farmer v. McDaniel

Criminal Procedure: Where an initial capital sentence imposes the death penalty and the basis for the initial sentence is later invalidated, the state can seek to reimpose the death penalty on different grounds without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

(Filing Date: 02-07-2012)

Mendoza-Pablo v. Holder

Immigration: "Where a pregnant mother is persecuted in a manner that materially impedes her ability to provide for the basic needs of her child, where that child's family has undisputedly suffered severe persecution, and where the newborn child suffers serious deprivations directly attributable not only to those facts, but also to the material ongoing threat of continued persecution of the child and the child's family, that child may be said to have suffered persecution and therefore be eligible for asylum under the INA."

(Filing Date: 02-07-2012)

Perry v. Brown

Constitutional Law: Proposition 8, which defines marriage in California as between a man and a woman, is an unconstitutional violation of Equal Protection.

(Filing Date: 02-07-2012)

Secalt S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Construction Machinery Co.

Patents: A companies external design elements are not entitled to trade dress protection unless they can prove that the design does not serve any functional purpose and used only to set their design apart.

(Filing Date: 02-07-2012)

Tri-Valley CARE v. United State Department of Energy

Administrative Law: Under the National Environmental Policy Act analysis, analogizing triggering events, comparing critical distinctions, and considering uniquely different circumstances satisfy the requisite "hard look" the Department of Energy must make at the environmental consequences of their actions.

(Filing Date: 02-07-2012)

United States v. Willis Reyes-Bonilla

Immigration: An alien may challenge removal under the due process clause by when (1) they have exhausted all administrative remedies; (2) they have been deprived of the opportunity for judicial review; and (3) the proceeding was fundamentally unfair. To show fundamental unfairness, the alien must prove that his due process rights were violated, and that he would have had a plausible claim for relief had he not been prejudiced.

(Filing Date: 02-06-2012)

Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al

Alternative Dispute Resolution: Review of arbitration awards under arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act is limited to the standards specified in the Act, and awards may be vacation only on grounds listed in Section 10 of the Act; an arbitrator's written explanation of the rulings need only be sufficient enough to allow for this limited review. Furthermore, an arbitrator's recognition of applicable law in a written explanation is enough to overcome the allegation that the award should be vacated for manifest disregard of the law.

(Filing Date: 02-03-2012)

Pacific Rivers Council v. USFS

Administrative Law: The United States Forest Service failed to take the requisite “hard look” at environmental consequences in an Environmental Impact Statement because they failed to show why it was not reasonably possible to perform any analysis of those consequences.

(Filing Date: 02-03-2012)

Sauer v. U.S. Department of Education

Administrative Law: Under the Randolph-Sheppard Act, a state licensing agency has no duty to bring an enforcement action against a federal agency to enforce an arbitration award issued pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 107d-1(b).

(Filing Date: 02-03-2012)

Fair Housing Council v. Roommate.com, LLC

Civil Law: Roommate selection based on sex, sexual orientation, and familial status does not violate the federal Fair Housing Act or California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

(Filing Date: 02-02-2012)

Kristin Perry v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr.

Civil Law: Protection of judicial integrity in a proceeding is a compelling interest to be protected in not releasing a recording under seal of trial proceedings.

(Filing Date: 02-02-2012)

GECCMC 2005-C1 Plummer Street v. JP Morgan Chase Bank

Landlord Tenant: A landlord is not an intended third-party beneficiary to a Purchase & Assumption Agreement (P&A), which otherwise, would allow them to sue for breach of contract on an agreement between the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporations (FDIC) and a new mortgage purchaser.

(Filing Date: 02-01-2012)

United States v. Noriega-Perez

Evidence: Whenever alienage is an element of a crime, the alleged alien who was the subject of the offense does not need to testify, and a jury can make an inference that the alleged alien was not allowed to enter the country legally based upon the non-availability of the non-testifying witness.

(Filing Date: 02-01-2012)

In Matter of Thorpe Insulation Co.

Bankruptcy Law: When a bankruptcy court finds a contract dispute to be a “core proceeding” in a bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy court may use its discretion to find an arbitration agreement in that contract unenforceable.

(Filing Date: 01-30-2012)

United States v. Casasola

Immigration: The statute 8 U.S.C. § 1432(a), in effect prior to February 27, 2001, does not violate the equal protection clause by denying derivative citizenship to foreign-born children when only one married parent is a naturalized citizen.

(Filing Date: 01-30-2012)

AE v. County of Tulare

Tort Law: A plaintiff alleging viable state negligence claims and a § 1983 claim must be given the opportunity for leave to amend to meet pleading requirements when the first amended complaint "did not put forth additional facts" regarding "alleged policy, custom, or practice" of a government entity.

(Filing Date: 01-27-2012)

Hutcherson v. Arizona Health Care Cost

Civil Law: Under 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(1)(F)(i), the State is entitled to recover medical costs stemming from the institutionalization of an individual receiving Medicaid assistance out of an annuity purchased by the spouse. The recovery is not limited to only medical care costs incurred after the spouse’s death.

(Filing Date: 01-27-2012)

In Matter of Meruelo Maddux Properties, Inc.

Bankruptcy Law: There is no basis in the plain language of the single asset real estate provisions of the Bankruptcy Code § 101(51)(b) for a “whole business enterprise” exception.

(Filing Date: 01-27-2012)

Tyson v. Holder

Immigration: The repeal of § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act imposes an impermissible retroactive effect on a lawful permanent resident, who was “convicted pursuant to a stipulated facts agreement based on a reasonable expectation that it would not negatively affect her immigration status.”

(Filing Date: 01-27-2012)

Oshodi v. Holder

Immigration: The BIA sufficiently complies with a Court mandate when its analysis does not "run counter to 'the spirit' of [the] mandate." An immigration judge's adverse credibility determination will be affirmed where "the IJ considered the totality of the circumstances," and not merely "rank speculation and conjecture and inconsequential factors." Lastly, a petitioner carries the burden of proving due process violations and Convention Against Torture claims.

(Filing Date: 01-26-2012)

United States v. Gonzalez

Criminal Procedure: Communications under an implied joint defense agreement are protected by attorney client privilege but the agreement may be terminated by the conduct of the parties.

(Filing Date: 01-25-2012)

United States v. Juvenile Male

Juvenile Law: Both the statutory text and legislative history of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification ACT ("SORNA") show that the registration requirements for juveniles convicted of aggravated sex offenses do not violate the confidentiality provisions of the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act ("FJDA").

(Filing Date: 01-25-2012)

Thorpe Insulation Co. v. Motor Vehicle Causality Co.

Bankruptcy Law: Non-Settling insurance carriers have standing to appeal § 543(g) bankruptcy reorganization plans when the Court is able to order modification or reversal of the plan and the plan has potentially adverse effects on insurance providers.

(Filing Date: 01-24-2012)

Leeson v. Transamerica Disability

Civil Procedure: ERISA plan participant status under § 1132(a)(1)(B) is an element of a claim, not an issue of subject matter jurisdiction.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2012)

Alvarez v. Hill

Civil Procedure: The United States v. Howard exception to the mootness doctrine, which allows an otherwise moot claim to proceed on the premise that it challenges an ongoing policy which would evade review, does not apply to claims against prison policies that deal with post-conviction incarceration conditions.

(Filing Date: 01-20-2012)

CRM Collateral II v. TriCounty Metropolitan Trans.

Contract Law: TriMet's draw on a Letter of Credit was proper and did not violate the statutory warranty of ORS section 75.1100(1)(b), therefore Collateral II cannot be characterized as a surety and is not entitled discharge.

(Filing Date: 01-20-2012)

Sierra Club v. EPA

Environmental Law: The Environmental Protection Agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously when approving a State Implementation Plan for National Ambient Air Quality Standards, based on data that is significantly different than more current data.

(Filing Date: 01-20-2012)

Strategic Diversity, Inc. v. Alchemix Corporation

Contract Law: To rescind a contract on the basis of § 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation, plaintiff must demonstrate economic damages. To rescind a contract based on a state securities law claim in Arizona, economic damages need not be shown.

(Filing Date: 01-20-2012)

United States v. Juvenile Male

Indian Law: Under the Bruce framework, a bench trial court can find beyond a reasonable doubt that a juvenile is “Indian” under 18 U.S.C. § 1153, despite not being socially recognized by the tribe, when he has a sufficient amount of Indian blood, is enrolled as a tribal member, receives governmental assistance for Indians, and benefits from tribal association.

(Filing Date: 01-20-2012)

Farris v. Seabrook

Constitutional Law: Washington campaign contribution restrictions to committees in recall elections are an impermissible restriction on Free Speech.

(Filing Date: 01-19-2012)

Montana Sulpher & Chemical Co. v. EPA

Environmental Law: The EPA may rely on modeling to predict SO2 violation under the Clean Air Act when existing sampling data is limited or insufficient.

(Filing Date: 01-19-2012)

United States v. Solorio

Evidence: Under FRE 604, a party must show inaccuracy or illegal conduct from a nonsworn interpreter’s interpretation during trial in order to have a claim of prejudice and get a reversal.

(Filing Date: 01-19-2012)

Washington State Republican Party v. Washington State Grange

First Amendment: Washington State's top two primary system did not violate political parties' First Amendment association rights because no actual voter confusion was found where, in accordance with U.S. Supreme Court suggestions, the form of the ballot included a prominent disclaimer that party preference is only a self-designation and not a party endorsement.

(Filing Date: 01-19-2012)

United States v. Melendez-Castro

Immigration: A collateral attack on a deportation order must show a violation of the defendant’s due process right and prejudice.

(Filing Date: 01-18-2012)

Chettiar v. Holder

Immigration: Under the Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986, the Citizenship and Immigration Services does not lose jurisdiction of a petition to remove conditions placed on residence pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(3)(A) if it fails adjudicate the petition within ninety days.

(Filing Date: 01-17-2012)

United States v. Kuok

Criminal Law: The Arms Export Control Act does not violate the nondelegation principle; "attempting to cause an export of a defense article is not a federal crime"; 18 U.S.C. § 1956 convictions will be vacated where the government fails to satisfy the amount-in controversy requirement of § 1956(f)(2); and district courts must allow a defendant to present a duress defense to a jury where "he has alleged facts sufficient" to support such defense.

(Filing Date: 01-17-2012)

White v. City of Pasadena

Civil Procedure: State court decisions and reviewed administrative decisions in federal discrimination claims are entitled to the same preclusive effect that any other decision would be given in the courts of that state.

(Filing Date: 01-17-2012)

Bowers v. Whitman

Constitutional Law: Legislation which replaced and modified former legislation regarding the processes in which landowners receive compensation for government land use regulations, does not amount to a "constitutional taking" of property interests under the former legislation, when property interests have not yet vested.

(Filing Date: 01-12-2012)

Hydrick v. Hunter

Civil Law: In order to seek monetary damages under a § 1983 claim, a plaintiff must overcome qualified immunity by alleging factual allegations that are sufficient to establish a plausible claim against a defendant.

(Filing Date: 01-12-2012)

Mazza v. American Honda

Civil Procedure: Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), no common issue of law exists in a consumer protection class action stemming from automobile sales in 44 different jurisdictions, because the foreign states’ interest in applying its own consumer protection laws to achieve an optimal balance between protecting consumers and fostering commerce, outweighs one state’s interest in regulating those who do business and commit wrongdoing within its borders.

(Filing Date: 01-12-2012)

Shelley v. Geren

Employment Law: The district court’s grant of summary judgment was improper because plaintiff timely pursued administrative remedies and established a prima facie case of age discrimination for two job promotions in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

(Filing Date: 01-12-2012)

United States v. Arango

Immigration: For purposes of venue under 8 U.S.C. § 1451, there is “a rebuttable presumption that an incarcerated individual retains residence in the judicial district where he lived prior to incarceration.”

(Filing Date: 01-12-2012)

United States v. Lopez-Avila

Criminal Procedure: Double Jeopardy does not bar a retrial where prosecutorial misconduct that led to a mistrial was not the result of a strategic decision to retry to case at a more advantageous date.

(Filing Date: 01-12-2012)

Bonneau v. Centennial School District

Tort Law: Under Wilson v. Garcia the Supreme Court stated that state's residual personal injury statute of limitations should be applied to § 1983 claims in order to prevent "unnecessary litigation and preserve the efficacy of the 1983 remedy." Plaintiff's § 1983 child abuse claim was found to be governed by the state's general personal injury statute of limitations, and since the state's tolling statute was not closely related to the two-year residual statute of limitations, federal law governed the accrual of plaintiff's § 1983 claim.

(Filing Date: 01-11-2012)

United States v. Alcala-Sanchez

Sentencing: When a prosecutor agrees to a stipulated plea agreement, then subsequently changes the recommended sentence to a greater sentence than agreed, it is a breach of the plea agreement and the case must be remanded for resentencing before a different judge.

(Filing Date: 01-10-2012)

United States v. McGowan

Post-Conviction Relief: Since a defendant did not move to get a new trial if a judgment of acquittal was reversed, the district court did not err in failing to conditionally rule that defendant get a new trial if his judgment of acquittal was reversed. Further, a defendant’s inadequate assistance of counsel claim is not reviewed on appeal since the trial record was not developed to permit determination on the issue and since the representation was not so inadequate that the defendant was denied his 6th amendment right to counsel.

(Filing Date: 01-10-2012)

United States v. Havelock

Criminal Law: Under 18 USC § 867(c), a mailed communication containing a threat must be directed to a natural person; a court may look beyond the outside of the parcel to the contents of the letter or package to determine to whom, if anybody, such a threat is addressed.

(Filing Date: 01-06-2012)

Vegas Diamond Properties, LLC v. La Jolla Bank, FSB

Civil Procedure: An appeal in federal court is moot if the conduct to be enjoined has already occurred, regardless of whether the case raises issues of substantial public interest.

(Filing Date: 01-06-2012)

United States v. Keith Russell

Criminal Procedure: An officer can assume that the scope of a general consent search of the person, in a drug investigation, includes a pat-down of the groin area.

(Filing Date: 01-05-2012)

United States v. Rodriguez-Ocampo

Immigration: “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).”

(Filing Date: 12-30-2011)

Balderas v. Countrywide Bank

Civil Procedure: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-29-2011)

Estrella v. Ollison

Sentencing: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-29-2011)

Family PAC v. McKenna

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

(Filing Date: 12-29-2011)

Hepting v. AT & T Corp.

Constitutional Law: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-29-2011)

Jewel v. National Security Agency

Standing: “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.

(Filing Date: 12-29-2011)

McMurray v. Verizon Communications

Constitutional Law: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-29-2011)

Northern Plains Resource v. Tongue River RR

Administrative Law: 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."

(Filing Date: 12-29-2011)

Orange County v. California Dept. of Education

Administrative Law: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-28-2011)

United States v. Shetler

Criminal Procedure: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-28-2011)

United States v. Valenzuela-Espinoza

Criminal Procedure: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-28-2011)

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

Disability Law: 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.’”

(Filing Date: 12-27-2011)

Parker v. Small

Criminal Procedure: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-27-2011)

Wright v. Incline Village General Improvement

Constitutional Law: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-27-2011)

Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego

Land Use: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-23-2011)

Drake v. Obama

Civil Procedure: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-22-2011)

UMG Recordings v. Shelter Capital Partners

Copyright: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-20-2011)

Plaza Auto Center v. NLRB

Employment Law: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-19-2011)

Romero-Mendoza v. Holder

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

(Filing Date: 12-19-2011)

Crockett & Myers v. Napier, Fitzgerald & Kirby

Appellate Procedure: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-16-2011)

M.R., et al v. Dreyfus

Disability Law: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-16-2011)

Ministry of Defense of Iran v. Cubic Defense

Alternative Dispute Resolution: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-15-2011)

Alston v. Read

Sentencing: 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."

(Filing Date: 12-14-2011)

Sullivan v. Oracle Corporation

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

(Filing Date: 12-13-2011)

Merolillo v. Yates

Habeas Corpus: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-12-2011)

Bravo v. City of Santa Maria

Civil Law: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-09-2011)

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

Disability Law: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-08-2011)

Johnson v. Finn

Constitutional Law: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-08-2011)

Pagayon v. Holder

Immigration: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-08-2011)

United States v. Tapia

Sentencing: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-08-2011)

Gonzalez v. Wong

Habeas Corpus: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-07-2011)

Kwong v. Holder

Immigration: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-07-2011)

Red Lion Hotels Franchising Inc. v. MAK, LLC

Civil Law: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-07-2011)

United States v. Grant

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

(Filing Date: 12-05-2011)

Andrich v. United States

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

(Filing Date: 12-02-2011)

Strategic Diversity v. Alchemix Corp.

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

(Filing Date: 12-02-2011)

Citizens for Balanced Use v. McAllister

Administrative Law: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-01-2011)

Flynn v. Holder

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

(Filing Date: 12-01-2011)

Developmental Services Network v. Douglas

Disability Law: The State must gain federal approval for State Plan Amendments. However, injunctions against enforcement of unapproved plans may not be granted where plaintiffs fail to assert an unambiguous federal right under § 1983.

(Filing Date: 11-30-2011)

Lezama-Garcia v. Holder

Immigration: An unintentional departure does not constitute abandonment of an alien's NACARA § 202 application to adjust status and that alien cannot be removed until that application is decided.

(Filing Date: 11-30-2011)

United States v. Leal-Felix

Criminal Procedure: Traffic citations are not arrests under the traditional definition and therefore should not be included in calculating a sentence based on the Sentencing Guidelines.

(Filing Date: 11-30-2011)

Sacks v. Dietrich

Alternative Dispute Resolution: The federal district court has jurisdiction over state law claims against arbitrators when the central question of the case is the violation of regulatory authorities arbitration rules.

(Filing Date: 11-23-2011)

Steven Levin v. United States

Tort Law: Section 1089(e) of the Gonzalez Act does not waive the government’s sovereign immunity for common law battery claims.

(Filing Date: 11-23-2011)

United States v. Rudd

Sentencing: A sentencing judge commits procedural error when she imposes a 2000 foot residency condition, not otherwise found in the plea agreement, when the reason is not apparent from the record or the judge fails to articulate why the condition is appropriate.

(Filing Date: 11-23-2011)

Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Wyoming

Wildlife Law: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service created adequate “regulatory mechanisms” to protect the Yellowstone grizzly bear as a recovered species but did not provide sufficient reasons as to why the reduction of a major food source would not negatively impact the grizzly population in order to uphold the ruling removing them from the threatened species list.

(Filing Date: 11-22-2011)

Albano v. Shea Holmes

Civil Procedure: Certified questions of state law ruled upon by the Arizona Supreme Court are applied both retroactively and prospectively.

(Filing Date: 11-21-2011)

Nachshin v. AOL

Civil Procedure: The principle of cy pres distributions in a class action lawsuit requires a relationship between the recipient of cy pres distribution and the underlying causes of action or the interests of the class; cy pres distributions to a Legal Aid Foundation and local chapters of the Boys and Girls Club of America do not necessarily meet the standards, and geographic representation of the class is part of the interests of the class.

(Filing Date: 11-21-2011)

NLRB v. Legacy Health System

Labor Law: The expeditious filing for enforcement of an order that does not affect the twenty-eight day window to file for reconsideration, does not constitute “extraordinary circumstance” sufficient to review an unpreserved issue pursuant to section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(e).

(Filing Date: 11-21-2011)

United States v. Beltran Valdez

Criminal Procedure: An order denying a request for replacement counsel is barred by the collateral order doctrine and therefore not immediately appealable.

(Filing Date: 11-21-2011)

United States v. Tadio

Sentencing: A Circuit Court has no jurisdiction to review the district court’s exercise of discretion in a sentencing reduction when the district court properly considers a defendant’s relative culpability, capacity for abiding by the law, and threat to society along with cooperation with authorities.

(Filing Date: 11-21-2011)

Lopez-Cardona v. Holder

Immigration: A conviction for residential burglary under California Penal Code § 459 constitutes a crime of violence because it is a felony "that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense," making it a "particularly serious crime" for the purposes of denying withholding of removal.

(Filing Date: 11-18-2011)

Ortiz v. Uribe

Habeas Corpus: During the administration of a polygraph examination, if an examiner uses an appeal to tell the truth for his family and children to appeal to emotionalism, and does not declare that the examiner is a law enforcement officer, this does not demonstrate that the defendant's will was overborne and the confession involuntary.

(Filing Date: 11-18-2011)

Stein v. Ryan

Post-Conviction Relief: It is the province of the courts, and not of state agencies, to determine the legality of prison sentences. An interim judicial decision may give a convict a right to have his sentence vacated, but it is the court hearing his case that gives him the right to be released.

(Filing Date: 11-18-2011)

Durand v. U.S. Department of Labor

Labor Law: A FECA beneficiary must deduct litigation costs from the gross recovery of a judgment received under 5 U.S.C. § 8132.

(Filing Date: 11-17-2011)

Rhodes v. Blades

Habeas Corpus: Motion for stay of execution based on a pending Supreme Court case is not granted if the petitioner waits until the deadline and is unable to demonstrate why the pending case would change the outcome for the petitioner.

(Filing Date: 11-17-2011)

Rhoades v. Reinke

Constitutional Law: In order to succeed in a motion for stay of execution based on the constitutionality of an execution protocol, the defendant must show that he is likely to succeed in his challenge in order to be entitled to a stay.

(Filing Date: 11-16-2011)

Rock Creek Alliance v. USF & W

Administrative Law: Reviewing a challenge to biological opinions issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, the opinions will be upheld so long as they are not arbitrary, capricious, or in violation of the Endangered Species Act.

(Filing Date: 11-16-2011)

Connecticut Retirement Plans v. Amgen

Civil Procedure: In a securities fraud class action suit, a plaintiff using the fraud-on-the-market presumption to show reliance does not need to prove that the alleged misrepresentations were material in order to certify the class.

(Filing Date: 11-08-2011)

Campbell v. State of Washington

Constitutional Law: A government caretaker is not liable under § 1983 when there is not special relationship between the patient and the state, and when the state actors did not take an affirmative act to create a dangerous situation.

(Filing Date: 11-07-2011)

Ditullio v. Boehm

Civil Law: Under the civil remedy provision of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1595, a victim may recover punitive damages since the provision “creates a cause of action that sounds in tort and punitive damages are available in tort actions under common law.” However, § 1595 does not apply retroactively to a perpetrator's conduct that occurs before § 1595's effective date.

(Filing Date: 11-07-2011)

Gutierrez v. Holder

Immigration: In deportation hearings, an IJ can look into a person’s past record for a reasonable period of time to determine their good moral character. In deportation hearings, IJ’s can make adverse inferences based on a person’s silence without violating Fifth Amendment rights.

(Filing Date: 11-07-2011)

Roberts v. McAfee

Tort Law: In malicious prosecution cases, the plaintiff carries a burden of showing that undisputed facts underlying criminal charges do not amount to probable cause. Also, California Civil Code § 3425.3 precludes claims that a failure to remove a defamatory post constitutes a republication of the defamatory statement.

(Filing Date: 11-07-2011)

United States v. Ceballos

Sentencing: Since it is up to the discretion of the Bureau of Prisons as to where the confinement of an inmate is to take place, the denial of a recommendation for a specific housing designation is not a final order that is appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or 18 U.S.C. § 3742.

(Filing Date: 11-07-2011)

Glenn v. Washington County

Civil Procedure: Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact. In the case of qualified immunity for police officers the actions of the officer should be objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances.

(Filing Date: 11-04-2011)

Kairy v. SuperShuttle Int’l

Administrative Law: The district court’s employee status determination would not interfere or frustrate the regulatory authority of the California Public Utilities Commission over passenger stage corporations because policy determinations regarding employment status made by the PUC are not synonymous with California state law.

(Filing Date: 11-03-2011)

Mirmehdi v. United States

Immigration: Illegal immigrants having used alternative remedies are not entitled to money damages for constitutional violations.

(Filing Date: 11-03-2011)

United States v. Harvey

Parole and Post-Prison Supervision: In an order finding defendant in violation of his supervised release conditions based upon his use of marijuana, the Circuit Court held that "[w]hatever else 'order' might mean under § 844(a) of the Controlled Substances Act, it does not include a mere recommendation from a physician pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act."

(Filing Date: 11-03-2011)

Garcia v. Holder

Immigration: Immigrants paroled into the United States as a "Special Immigrant Juvenile, under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(h), qualif[y] as [admitted] ‘in any status’ for the purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2)."

(Filing Date: 11-02-2011)

Conahan v. Sebelius

Insurance Law: Medicare Advantage Plans are not required to reimburse a patient when she unilateraly seeks the surgical removal of a tumor, after chemotherapy was found to be “available, accessible, and adequate” by the healthcare provider.

(Filing Date: 11-01-2011)

United States v. Sanchez

Criminal Procedure: A closing argument which asks the jury to consider the social ramifications of a nonguilty verdict may create an overly prejudicial effect and result in reversal, if there are not proper steps taken to mitigate the effect.

(Filing Date: 11-01-2011)

Small v. Avanti Health Systems, LLC

Labor Law: A successor employer's failure to negotiate with a union is at least as harmful as an employer who negotiates in bad faith and is grounds for an injunctive relief.

(Filing Date: 10-31-2011)

Boyer v. Belleque

Habeas Corpus: In reviewing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the court looks first to state law to determine the elements of the crime and then to the federal question of whether the state court was objectively unreasonable in concluding the evidence was sufficient to support its decision.

(Filing Date: 10-28-2011)

United States v. Newman

Criminal Law: Under 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), where the government proves the elements required for a judgment of criminal forfeiture, the district court must enter a judgment for criminal forfeiture in the amount of the proceeds of the crime; the district court does not have discretion to reduce or eliminate the judgment.

(Filing Date: 10-28-2011)

United States v. Wilson

Standing: Under U.S.C. § 853(n)(2) any person may petition the court for the property seized as a result of a fraudulent investment investigation, with the exception of the defendant, based on Congressional negation of the zone of interests test.

(Filing Date: 10-28-2011)

Miller v. City of Los Angeles

Civil Procedure: (1) Where conduct was not violative, a defendant-counsel's mistaken concession or apology for a violation does not create a basis for sanctions. (2) Counsel does not violate an in limine order precluding statements that a decedent was armed, when counsel argues that an officer reasonably believed a decedent was dangerous because the decedent had just shot someone.

(Filing Date: 10-27-2011)

Schultz v. Tilton

Habeas Corpus: A jury instruction which allows a jury to consider a defendant’s prior bad acts if found by a preponderance of the evidence, does not misstate the prosecutor’s burden of proof.

(Filing Date: 10-27-2011)

Seeboth v. Mayberg

Civil Commitment: Despite changes to California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act (“SVPA”) brought about by Proposition 83, a properly filed renewal petition and the final resolution to a jury proceeding to commit a sexually violent predator under the SVPA renders moot an appeal from a denial of a federal habeas petition seeking release from custody.

(Filing Date: 10-27-2011)

Taylor v. Comm. of Soc. Sec. Admin.

Administrative Law: Further proceedings to determine the award of disability insurance benefits are in order when the Administrative Law Judge and Appeals Council do not fully consider all submitted, relevant medical evidence and testimony favorable to the claimant’s alleged disability.

(Filing Date: 10-27-2011)

United States v. Williams

Criminal Law: The plain language of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2251(d)(1)(A) does not contain any personal production element, nor does any tense of the wording show any congressional intent to include such an element to convict a defendant under this statute. .

(Filing Date: 10-27-2011)

Carrillo-Yeras v. Astrue

Administrative Law: When the Social Security Administration ("SSA") needlessly delays for over a year in reopening a claim without a showing that it “diligently pursued” investigation, it can not reverse any decision that was beneficial to applicant.

(Filing Date: 10-25-2011)

Gonzales v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Immigration: The Ninth Circuit's opinion Duran Gonzales II , finds that the Plaintiffs are ineligible for adjustment of status as the case is applied retroactively to those who applied for adjustment prior to the opinion.

(Filing Date: 10-25-2011)

Sarei v. Rio Tinto

Tort Law: Since plaintiff’s claims of genocide and crimes against humanity are claims for violation of internationally accepted norms that are “specific, universal and obligatory,” those claims, under Sosa , fall in the limited category of Alien Tort Statute claims that receive federal jurisdiction.

(Filing Date: 10-25-2011)

Arsdi v. Holder

Immigration: When an alien fails to raise an issue to the BIA, nor claim that the IJ's decision "contains a factually invalid statement of law or fact," the appellate court has no jurisdiction to consider the claim as the alien did not exhaust the issue in the proper administrative forum.

(Filing Date: 10-24-2011)

Doe v. Busby

Habeas Corpus: A jury instruction that “impermissibly lowers the burden of proof” requires structural error review.

(Filing Date: 10-24-2011)

United States v. Reveles

Criminal Procedure: It is not a violation of double jeopardy rights for a defendant to be punished in a non-judicial punishment proceeding and a federal prosecution proceeding.

(Filing Date: 10-24-2011)

United States v. Rizk

Criminal Procedure: Where an indictment alleges a conspiracy, summary evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006 that includes acts not specified in the indictment, does not constitute “other acts” evidence under Rule 404(b), as such evidence is offered to show the full scope of that conspiracy.

(Filing Date: 10-19-2011)

United States v. Wilkes

Criminal Procedure: An honest services fraud conviction supported by a separate bribery count, is not insufficient for reliance on theories other than bribery or kickbacks. In addition, there is no merger in a money laundering conviction involving concealment because the crime concerns the gross receipts and not merely the profits of the underlying crime.

(Filing Date: 10-19-2011)

Fossen v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield

Insurance Law: ERISA preempts state HIPPA laws for the purpose of subject matter jurisdiction and state law causes of action on the merits. Federal ERISA does not preempt state law claims for relief under separate state unfair insurance practice laws that prohibits charging different policy premiums to similarly situated individuals.

(Filing Date: 10-18-2011)

Smallwood v. Allied Van Lines

Alternative Dispute Resolution: The Carmack Amendment does not necessarily fail for foreign arbitration clauses, and a shipper may agree to arbitrate the claim after the dispute arises with an interstate motor carrier but may not be forced to at the time of contracting; Congress intended Carmack to be a minor exception to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) by enacting provisions of the Amendment after the passage of the FAA.

(Filing Date: 10-18-2011)

Mattos v. Agarano

Criminal Procedure: Police are entitled to qualified immunity for claims of use of excessive force involving tasers, when not all reasonable police officials would find the particular set of circumstances a use of excessive force.

(Filing Date: 10-17-2011)

United States v. Carper

Criminal Procedure: In order to qualify for the base offence level of fourteen, items illegally exported that appear on the United States Munitions List, 22 C.F.R § 121.1 must meet the definition of “firearm.” Also, district courts are not required to depart from the U.S. Sentencing Guideline Manual § 2M5.2 on policy grounds if they have no disagreement with the Manual’s recommendations.

(Filing Date: 10-14-2011)

Montana Consumer Counsel v. FERC

Administrative Law: FERC's Order 697, which establishes a market-based regulatory policy, does not exceed its authority under the FPA because FERC has enhanced its upfront tests for market power and oversight of market-based rates.

(Filing Date: 10-13-2011)

United States v. Gregory Reyes

Criminal Law: When a defendant signs off on granting stock options to himself, evidence of fraud presented to the jury was not false because the jury was informed that the defendant was not the one who ultimately approved granting stock options.

(Filing Date: 10-13-2011)

United States v. McEnry

Criminal Law: § 2B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, not § 2A5.2, is most analogous to the crime of serving as an airman without an airman's certificate.

(Filing Date: 10-13-2011)

United States v. Urena

Criminal Law: It is not an abuse of discretion to deny a self-defense jury instruction to an inmate who attacks another inmate after being called a derogatory term. The elimination of "recency points" does not apply retroactively .

(Filing Date: 10-13-2011)

James v. Schriro

Habeas Corpus: The Court reviews petitioner's claims for habeas corpus relief, finding ineffective assistance of counsel to exist where a defendant's counsel fails to investigate and present clear mitigating factors at a penalty phase trial when there is a "reasonable probability" that effective presentation of those factors could have overcome the aggravating factors that instead resulted in the imposition of a death sentence.

(Filing Date: 10-12-2011)

Russell Country Sportsmen v. USFS

Environmental Law: The Montana Wilderness Study Act of 1977 provides for a minimum standard for maintaining wilderness character. A final environmental impact statement will not violate the National Environmental Policy Act if the adopted plan falls within a range of alternatives and does not make any substantial changes.

(Filing Date: 10-12-2011)

Meza-Vallejos v. Holder

Immigration: When an alien’s sixty-day voluntary departure period falls on a day in which an immigrant would be unable to “file a motion for affirmative relief with the BIA, that day does not count in the voluntary departure period if . . . the immigrant files on the first available day a motion that would either have tolled, automatically withdrawn, or otherwise affected his request for voluntary departure.”

(Filing Date: 10-11-2011)

Carrera v. Ayers

Civil Procedure: An appellant fails Strickland (which requires "a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance") when defense counsel does not bring a Wheeler objection to challenge a prosecutor's preemptory challenge.

(Filing Date: 10-04-2011)

Suzlon Energy v. Microsoft Corporation

Evidence: A foreign citizen is a “person” whose emails are protected by the statutory framework of §§ 2702(a)(1), 2510(15), § 2510(13) of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, therefore an email service provider is not compelled to produce documents under a § 1782 order (an order to obtain evidence for use in a foreign or international tribunal).

(Filing Date: 10-03-2011)

United States v. Gilchrist

Sentencing: To qualify for a sentencing guidelines enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 a defendant need only willfully engage in conduct to obstruct a potential investigation and need not know that an investigation is pending.

(Filing Date: 10-03-2011)

United States v. King

Civil Law: False statements made to a state agent while investigating violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act may fall within 18 USC 1001(a)(2) “making materially false statements in a matter within the jurisdiction of the United States”.

(Filing Date: 10-03-2011)

Washington State v. Chimei Innolux Corp.

Civil Procedure: Parens Patriae suits filed by state Attorneys General may not be removed to federal court because the suits are not "class actions" within the plain meaning of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

(Filing Date: 10-03-2011)

United States v. Kortlander

Constitutional Law: There is a qualified common law right of access to warrant materials after a criminal investigation has been terminated.

(Filing Date: 09-30-2011)

United States v. Krupa

Criminal Procedure: A reviewing court should give a magistrate’s determination of probable cause great deference when determining whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the information provided to the magistrates created a fair probability that contraband or evidence would be found.

(Filing Date: 09-30-2011)

Log Cabin Republicans v. United States

Constitutional Law: Where a statute is repealed while an appeal challenging the constitutionality of that statute is pending, the suit is moot on appeal because “there is no longer a present, live controversy of the kind that must exist” for a reviewing federal court to reach the merits.

(Filing Date: 09-29-2011)

Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.

Copyright: A copyright misuse defense is invalid when a licensing agreement restricts the use of its own software and not the development of competing software.

(Filing Date: 09-28-2011)

Degelmann v. Advanced Medical Optics

Standing: Injury in fact under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 is satisfied when “the consumer has purchased a product that he or she paid more for that he or she otherwise might have been willing to pay if the product had been labeled accurately.”

(Filing Date: 09-28-2011)

United States v. Barraza-Lopez

Criminal Procedure: The Speedy Trial Act’s thirty-day window to file charges after an arrest does not bar charges that have been dropped without prejudice from later being refiled.

(Filing Date: 09-28-2011)

United States v. Stonehill

Civil Procedure: In order to commit fraud on the court, government misrepresentations in civil trials must be so substantial that they undermine the judicial process.

(Filing Date: 09-28-2011)

American Trucking Associations v. Los Angeles

Civil Law: Federal law preempts the employment provision of the Port of Los Angeles concessions agreements with drayage truck carriers because the law interferes with third party employment relationships.

(Filing Date: 09-26-2011)

Earl v. Nielsen Media Research

Employment Law: When analyzing whether someone is similarly situated in an age discrimination case, the proper inquiry is not whether he or she are outside the protected class, but whether the comparable employees are significantly younger then the claimant.

(Filing Date: 09-26-2011)

Haile v. Holder

Immigration: In denying a Convention Against Torture deferral, the Board of Immigration Appeals must base its decisions on substantial evidence, not factual inaccuracies or hypothesized assumptions not grounded in the record.

(Filing Date: 09-26-2011)

Jiang v. Holder

Immigration: The IJ erred in not allowing the petitioner to authenticate documents through his own testimony, when such documents would be substantial evidence in demonstrating his eligibility for adjustment of status. The IJ and BIA also erred in denying a reasonable short continuance when petitioner was not given adequate notice that documents would require authentication through a United States consulate in China.

(Filing Date: 09-26-2011)

Silva v. Di Vittorio

Constitutional Law: A prisoner’s right to access the court under the First and Fourteenth Amendments includes a right “to litigate claims challenging their sentences or the conditions of their confinement to conclusion without active interferences by prison officials.”

(Filing Date: 09-26-2011)

Stokley v. Ryan

Habeas Corpus: Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, where a criminal defendant has failed to make a colorable claim of ineffectiveness of counsel, the defendant is not entitled to a new evidentiary hearing in federal court regardless of whether the defendant has exhausted state court appeals.

(Filing Date: 09-26-2011)

United States v. Chung

Evidence: The government’s failure to turn over exculpatory information does not violate its duty under Brady v. Maryland, when the evidence against the defendant is so overwhelming that the exculpatory information would not reasonably have resulted in a different trial outcome.

(Filing Date: 09-26-2011)

United States v. Perelman

Constitutional Law: The statute 18 U.S.C. § 704(a) applies to the “unauthorized wearing of medals only where the wearer intends to deceive.” By only outlawing “legitimately criminal conduct,” the statute is not overbroad, nor does it infringe on the constitutionally protected “pure speech” ways in which such medals may be worn.

(Filing Date: 09-26-2011)

United States v. Sykes

Criminal Procedure: Since a mandatory statutory minimum sentence applied to a defendant and was included in the amended Sentencing Guidelines, the district court’s refusal to lower the defendant’s sentence was proper and did not constitute a new sentence, therefore it neither violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights nor invoked the Double Jeopardy Clause, and since the Fair Sentencing Act is not retroactive, the defendant’s due process rights were not violated.

(Filing Date: 09-26-2011)

Al Haramain Islamic v. U.S. Dept of Treasury

Constitutional Law: The use of confidential information does not violate due process, however the government must attempt to mitigate the impact caused by using confidential information.

(Filing Date: 09-23-2011)

Confederated Tribes v. Gregoire

Indian Law: Indian tax immunity is not violated by the State of Washington’s cigarette excise tax RCW § 82.24, when tribal retailers are required to tax non-Indian purchasers of cigarettes, because “legal incidence,” the obligation to pay the tax, is intended to fall on the consumer. An absence of a statutory pass through provision is not outcome determinative to the inquiry.

(Filing Date: 09-23-2011)

Gonzales v. Arrow Financial Services

Civil Law: Debt collection practice will be judged by the least sophisticated debtor standard, which protects those of below average intelligence but presumes a basic level of understanding. Unfair collection practices may also be compensated under both federal and state law.

(Filing Date: 09-23-2011)

United State v. Rivera

Sentencing: Defendant’s judicially-noticeable documents clearly and unequivocally established that his petty theft conviction “was based upon his plea of guilty to conduct that constitutes a generic theft offense.” As the term of imprisonment was at least one year for the theft offense conviction, the defendant’s “offense level was correctly increased by eight levels, under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(C).”

(Filing Date: 09-23-2011)

Cole v. Holder

Immigration: To establish a Convention Against Torture claim, one must show that it is more likely than not he or she will be tortured. Such a claim should review the overall risk of being tortured, rather than only the individual potential sources of torture.

(Filing Date: 09-22-2011)

GoPets Ltd v. Hise

Civil Law: Re-registration by a new registrant of an internet domain name is not a “registration” under § 1125(d)(1) of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”).

(Filing Date: 09-22-2011)

Prellwitz v. Sisto

Habeas Corpus: A district court did not reach a final decision when it adopted a magistrate’s recommendation on a habeas corpus petition that failed to stipulate a specified time of release for a prisoner.

(Filing Date: 09-22-2011)

In the Matter of Roman Catholic Archbishop

Civil Procedure: Public safety concerns can mandate that private information of a priest, not party to the lawsuit, may be released to the public, but “scandalous” portions must be redacted.

(Filing Date: 09-21-2011)

Maya v. Centex Corporation

Standing: Plaintiff should be given the opportunity to amend a complaint in order to establish a “causal connection” between Defendant’s actions and the alleged injury before the court dismisses for lack of constitutional standing.

(Filing Date: 09-21-2011)

Kolev v. Porsche Cars North America

Administrative Law: The FTC’s interpretation of the MMWA’s bar of mandatory pre-dispute binding arbitration is a reasonable interpretation and construction of the statute.

(Filing Date: 09-20-2011)

Maronyan v. Toyota Motor Sales

Civil Procedure: The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act’s exhaustion requirement does not use sweeping and direct language demonstrating clear congressional intent to mandate loss of subject matter jurisdiction.

(Filing Date: 09-20-2011)

United States v. Baker

Criminal Procedure: 42 U.S.C. § 14135a(a)(1) applies to “individuals in custody” and § 14135a(a)(2) applies to “individuals on release, parole, or probation” therefore, subsection (a)(1) does not authorize the collection of a probationer’s DNA.

(Filing Date: 09-20-2011)

United States v. Cristopher Ibarra-Pino

Criminal Law: When asserting a duress defense, a defendant’s failure to offer evidence that he or she could not have safely contacted law enforcement authorities goes to the third element of the defense, a reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm, and a lack of a prima facie showing precludes the defense and the jury instruction.

(Filing Date: 09-20-2011)

United States v. Dugan

Constitutional Law: 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits controlled substance users or addicts from shipping or possessing firearms and ammunition, does not violate the Second Amendment.

(Filing Date: 09-20-2011)

Intermountain Fair Housing Council v. Boise Rescue Mission Ministries

Civil Law: Faith-based homeless shelters and rehabilitation facilities are permitted to demonstrate preference based on religion because of the religious exemption 42 U.S.C. § 3607(a) provides to §3604's anti-discrimination provisions.

(Filing Date: 09-19-2011)

Luna v. Holder

Administrative Law: The Federal register provides sufficient notice to an alien seeking relief from a removal order; an alien’s due process rights are not infringed when a judge fails to advise the alien of his or her right to seek relief.

(Filing Date: 09-19-2011)

Sherman v. Securities and Exchange Commission

Bankruptcy Law: “11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(19) prevents the discharge of debts for securities-related wrongdoings only in cases where the debtor is responsible for that wrongdoing. Debtors who may have received funds derived from a securities violation remain entitled to a complete discharge of any resulting disgorgement order.”

(Filing Date: 09-19-2011)

Comite De Jornaleros v. City of Redondo

Constitutional Law: A city ordinance that prevents a person from soliciting cars on the sidewalk is facially unconstitutional if it is not narrowly tailored to restrict the types of solicitation sought to be discouraged.

(Filing Date: 09-16-2011)

Ellis v. Costco Wholesale

Civil Procedure: 28 U.S.C. § 1453(b), created by The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (The Act), allows only original defendants to remove an action to federal court.

(Filing Date: 09-16-2011)

Nichols v. Dancer

Constitutional Law: When a school district fails to produce evidence that their former employee was disloyal, disrupted the office, or was reasonably likely to disrupt the office in the future, and sanctioned her for showing up at a public meeting and sitting next to another former employer, the sanctioned employee’s First Amendment protection outweighs the district’s interest in workplace efficiency.

(Filing Date: 09-15-2011)

Samueli v. CIR

Tax Law: A securities loan with a fixed term entered for the purposes of avoiding taxable income does not qualify for non-recognition treatment.

(Filing Date: 09-15-2011)

Habibi v. Holder

Immigration: Regarding cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(3), (1) when defining “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43), one year equals 365-days regardless that a sentence is served during a 366-day leap year; (2) whether a state conviction is a “misdemeanor” is irrelevant to determining an “aggravated felony” under federal sentencing law; and (3) neither due process nor equal protection are offended by (a) a circuit split on an issue; or (b) where 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) denies § 212(h) waivers to lawful permanent residents (LPR) convicted of aggravated felonies, though not necessarily to similar non-LPR’s.

(Filing Date: 09-14-2011)

In re: Brenda Marie Jones

Bankruptcy Law: The statutory suspension provision under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(8) does not apply to a tax debt, which would otherwise be discharged in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding, where the debtor’s estate property re-vested after a prior bankruptcy proceeding and before the tax debt came due.

(Filing Date: 09-14-2011)

Trigueros v. Adams

Habeas Corpus: Compelling factual circumstances can indicate that a court denied a petition on the merits instead of as untimely when the court is silent on the issue.

(Filing Date: 09-14-2011)

United States v. Ayala-Nicanor

Criminal Procedure: A categorical crime of violence warrants an increased offense level during the sentencing phase if the statutory definition complies with the federal definition and no state cases have applied the statute more broadly than the federal definition.

(Filing Date: 09-14-2011)

United States v. Ruiz-Apolonio

Criminal Law: A sentencing court did not err when it denied variances requested by a defendant “to compensate for the inclusion of ‘recency’ points and the supposed differences between the Sentencing Commission’s and the Bureau of Prison’s methods for calculation good time credits.

(Filing Date: 09-14-2011)

United States v. Tafoya-Montelongo

Sentencing: A prior conviction for attempted sexual abuse of a child in state court may constitute a crime of violence for sentencing purposes under federal guidelines.

(Filing Date: 09-14-2011)

E.T. v. Cantil-Sakauye

Constitutional Law: The abstention doctrine does not allow the Court to adjudicate complaints were the relief sought would require the Federal Court to investigate into the administration and operation of the state’s juvenile court system.

(Filing Date: 09-13-2011)

Johnson v. Poway Unified School District

Constitutional Law: Restrictions by a public school on a teacher’s classroom speech in his or her role as a teacher before a captive audience of students, is subject to the “sequential five-step” inquiry under Pickering, not a forum-based analysis.

(Filing Date: 09-13-2011)

Local Joint Executive Board v. NLRB

Employment Law: In right-to-work states the unilateral termination of a dues-checkoff is a violation of the NLRA for refusing to bargain to agreement or impasse.

(Filing Date: 09-13-2011)

Moore v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

Criminal Procedure: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), the dismissal of an inmate’s suit based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction does not qualify as a “strike” against acquiring forma pauperis status.

(Filing Date: 09-13-2011)

Portrero Hills Landfill v. County of Solano

Constitutional Law: Private interest groups bringing a suit concerning enforcement of a ballot measure does not implicate comity or federalism issues under the Younger doctrine.

(Filing Date: 09-13-2011)

United States v. Alvarez-Moreno

Constitutional Law: An issue of double jeopardy arises when, after a guilty verdict in a bench trial, a judge orders a new trial after recognition that the defendant did not properly waive his right to a trial by jury.

(Filing Date: 09-13-2011)

Chevron U.S.A. v. M & M Petroleum Services

Civil Law: Under 15 U.S.C. § 2805(d), a franchisee can open itself up to liability for attorney’s fees by filing a frivolous counterclaim.

(Filing Date: 09-12-2011)

Fiore v. Walden

Civil Procedure: Personal jurisdiction in Nevada was found over a Georgia state DEA agent using the three-part Schwarzenegger test and the Calder-effects test, after he knowingly seized plaintiffs funds through falsified probable cause, claiming their legitimate gambling winnings was money used in the drug trade.

(Filing Date: 09-12-2011)

Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Akanoc Solutions

Civil Procedure: When determining statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) and 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) against defendants found joint and severally liable, the court may only award once for each contributory infringement, such that the plaintiff's damages for each infringement will not be multiplied by the number of defendants.

(Filing Date: 09-09-2011)

Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder

Immigration: In a deportation proceeding, a client is permitted to withdraw an admission of allegations made by client’s attorney where the admission is the product of ineffective assistance of counsel.

(Filing Date: 09-09-2011)

Solis v. State of Washington DSHS

Employment Law: Social workers do not come within the Fair Labor Standards Act “learned professional” exemption for overtime pay because the position requires course work in any of several fields broadly related to the position and does not require a prolonged course of “specialized intellectual instruction.”

(Filing Date: 09-09-2011)

Adams v. United States

Civil Law: Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a plaintiff has six months to file a lawsuit after receiving a denial letter via certified or registered mail. Failure to comply with this filing requirement forever bars the claim from federal court.

(Filing Date: 09-08-2011)

Michael P. v. Department of Education

Civil Law: By relying solely on a “severe discrepancy” model and not allowing for other factors to be considered, Hawaii DOE procedurally violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

(Filing Date: 09-08-2011)

Singh v. Holder

Immigration: “Extraordinary circumstances” in an untimely asylum application apply to the reason the application was delayed rather than the reason why the application was filed.

(Filing Date: 09-08-2011)

United States v. Santini

Evidence: A psychological expert witness cannot form an opinion on data that requires interpretation by an expert in law enforcement record keeping if no interpretation was previously performed.

(Filing Date: 09-08-2011)

Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans

Contract Law: In order to state a claim for the use of MERS under the Truth in Lending Act 15 U.S.C. § 1601, a plaintiff must allege that detrimental reliance upon misrepresentations about the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”) caused damages to the plaintiff.

(Filing Date: 09-07-2011)

Sivak v. Hardison

Criminal Procedure: Prosecutors, that knew or should have known that given material information was false or material information was withheld, violate a defendant’s due process rights according to the Brady and Napue standards.

(Filing Date: 09-07-2011)

United States v. Rodgers

Criminal Procedure: Although a stop made by a police officer was of a longer duration, it was justified since there continued to arise new grounds for suspicion of illegal or criminal activity, however, since there were no objective facts leading the officer to believe that a passenger’s identification may be inside of the car he had stopped, his search of the passenger compartment was improper and violative of the Fourth Amendment.

(Filing Date: 09-07-2011)

Carrico v. City of San Francisco

Constitutional Law: In order to establish standing for a claim of violation of the First Amendment based upon free speech, there must be some description of the restricted speech or conduct.

(Filing Date: 09-06-2011)

Diaz v. Brewer

Constitutional Law: A statute limiting public employee benefits to spouses of heterosexual couples and eliminating coverage for domestic partners violates equal protection.

(Filing Date: 09-06-2011)

United States v. Cisneros-Resendiz

Immigration: An Immigration Judge (IJ) has not prejudiced a defendant by not warning them of the effects of a withdrawal of an application for admission when it was unlikely the judge would have granted application for admission. Without a showing of prejudice, the defendant is precluded from a collateral attack on any removal orders.

(Filing Date: 09-06-2011)

Ybarra v. McDaniel

Habeas Corpus: The Court reviews and affirms the denials of multiple habeas corpus petitions by a man sentenced to death for a “1979 kidnapping, rape and murder.”

(Filing Date: 09-06-2011)

De Osorio v. Mayorkas

Immigration: Under Chevron, 8 U.S.C. § 1153(5)(3) “is ambiguous as to whether derivative beneficiaries of F3 and F4 family preference petitions are entitled to automatic conversion or priority date retention,” therefore, “aged-out aliens” of lawful permanent residents are not entitled to automatic conversion or priority date retention.

(Filing Date: 09-02-2011)

Payton v. Cullen

Criminal Law: A death sentence for rape, murder, and two attempted murders will not be overturned when a challenge to California’s lethal injection protocol fails, claims counsel rendered ineffective assistance fail, there was no Brady violation, and the cumulative effect of any errors does not render the trial unfair.

(Filing Date: 09-02-2011)

R.R. Street & Co. Inc. v. Transport Insurance Co.

Civil Procedure: Having discretion under Wilton/Brillhart, the district court properly granted a party’s motion for remand; since the district court was concerned with piecemeal litigation and impeding the progress of a prior action, the district court properly granted a motion to dismiss.

(Filing Date: 09-02-2011)

Samuels v. Holland American Line-USA Inc.

Tort Law: A cruise line does not owe a duty to warn passengers about the dangers of a local beach because wading or swimming in the ocean are not actions uniquely associated with maritime travel.

(Filing Date: 09-02-2011)

Alvarez v. Chevron Corporation

Civil Law: When a retailer’s gasoline pump conforms to relevant California consumer protection laws, the company is entitled to safe harbor from liability under the same laws.

(Filing Date: 09-01-2011)

Jackson v. Ryan

Civil Procedure: Jury instructions that read “homicide need not have been committed to perpetuate the felony…It is enough if the felony and the killing were part of the same series of events,” are unconstitutional because a reasonable jury would interpret them as negating the need to find the required element of felony murder that the killing was committed in furtherance of a felony.

(Filing Date: 09-01-2011)

Li v. Holder

Immigration: Where the BIA denies relief and remands pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(6) for background checks required for alternative relief, the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to consider an appeal of the final order denying relief.

(Filing Date: 09-01-2011)

United States v. Hunt

Sentencing: To sustain an increased penalty beyond the statutory maximum for intent to distribute cocaine, either the defendant must admit his or her intent to possess cocaine or the government must prove the intent to possess cocaine to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

(Filing Date: 09-01-2011)

United States v. Lafley

Constitutional Law: A supervised release condition that prohibits the use of a controlled substance by a convicted drug felon does not violate the Religious Freedom Reformation Act because it serves a compelling government interest using the least restrictive means.

(Filing Date: 09-01-2011)

Lockett v. Erickson

Constitutional Law: Heck v. Humphrey does not bar a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim when a defendant pled nolo contendere after the superior court denied his suppression motion and no evidence was introduced against him, therefore his conviction “derive[d] from [his] plea, not from [a] verdict obtained with supposedly illegal evidence.”

(Filing Date: 08-31-2011)

Lyon v. Chase Bank USA

Civil Law: The mistaken collection of a previously paid debt in violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act (“FCBA”) may allow recovery under Oregon’s Unlawful Debt Collection Practices Act (“UDCPA”) regardless of whether or not there was an actual debt or not.

(Filing Date: 08-30-2011)

United States v. Crowder

Criminal Procedure: Under the “knowingly” provision of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), the government need only prove that a convicted sex offender, who subsequently failed to register or update his or her registration with the state, knew he or she was required to so register and knowingly failed to do so. The government does not need to prove that the offender also knew failure to so register would also violate the provisions of SORNA.

(Filing Date: 08-30-2011)

International Union v. J & R Flooring

Employment Law: The district court has jurisdiction to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause, to decide whether a union has established majority representation through a card check procedure stipulated by the collective bargaining agreement.

(Filing Date: 08-29-2011)

Estate of Amaro v. City of Oakland

Tort Law: A statute of limitation defense will succumb to equitable estoppel when defendants misrepresent and withhold facts material to the cause of action.

(Filing Date: 08-28-2011)

Harlick v. Blue Shield of California

Insurance Law: California’s Mental Health Parity Act requires that a plan within the scope of the Act cover medically necessary residential treatment for mental disorders including anorexia nervosa.

(Filing Date: 08-26-2011)

Manufactured Home v. San Diego County

Civil Law: A California state-law claim of trade libel must contain a prima facie case that the “substance” of the statement(s) is false.

(Filing Date: 08-26-2011)

SEC V. Gewerter

Civil Procedure: On an issue of first impression the Ninth Circuit held that “on the basis of the clear language of Rule 45, we must hold that the court the issued the subpoena, and not the court where the underlying action is pending, can entertain a motion to quash or modify a subpoena.”

(Filing Date: 08-26-2011)

Valadez-Lopez v. United States

Civil Law: Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2675, failure by an agency to make a final disposition on a claim within six months may be deemed a final denial. Therefore exhausted, a plaintiff may amend an existing complaint that asserts non-FTCA claims and to name the United States in an FTCA cause of action.

(Filing Date: 08-26-2011)

Young v. County of Los Angeles

Criminal Procedure: Under the Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure clause, use of pepper spray and baton blows constitutes excessive force when the severity of the crime is low, there is no threat of violence, there is no resistance to arrest, and there are other less invasive means to accomplish police interests.

(Filing Date: 08-26-2011)

Barnes v. USDOT

Environmental Law: The addition of an airport runway raises "substantial questions [ ] as to whether a project [ ] may cause significant degradation of some human environmental factor," including indirect effects from increased demand.

(Filing Date: 08-25-2011)

Chism v. Washington State

Civil Law: Qualified immunity is not available to government employees in a § 1983 claim based on judicial deception when the plaintiff can substantially prove, that but for the dishonesty of the officers, the warrant would not have been issued.

(Filing Date: 08-25-2011)

Khoshfahm v. Holder

Immigration: The government has the burden to demonstrate by clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence that Legal Permanent Resident parents lacked the intent to return to the United States in order to impute such intention to their children.

(Filing Date: 08-25-2011)

McCants v. Betlach

Administrative Law: In order to be protected by cost-sharing restrictions of the Medicaid Act, plaintiffs must be both eligible for Medicaid coverage and part of the State’s plan.

(Filing Date: 08-24-2011)

United States v. Barajas-Alvarado

Immigration: An expedited removal proceeding order is valid as a predicate element under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 so long as the proceeding was fundamentally fair.

(Filing Date: 08-24-2011)

United States v. Matus-Zayas

Criminal Procedure: The statute 18 U.S.C. § 3144 does not abrogate the constitutional requirement of establishing a material witness unavailable prior to allowing preserved video-taped testimony at trial, when material witnesses have been released to their country of origin and a subpoena for their presence would be impracticable.

(Filing Date: 08-24-2011)

Napoliello v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Tax Law: When deficiency requires a partner-level determination, an affected item notice of deficiency will be sufficient. And, “determination as to a partnership's validity...falls within the definition of a partnership item” as it pertains to the Tax Court's jurisdiction to review FPAA determinations.

(Filing Date: 08-23-2011)

Withrow v. Bache Halsey Stuart Shield

Insurance Law: A person does not have reason to know that their claim has been denied when the provider fails to tell the client that accepting further payments will bar future action, continues to encourage the client to provide information to aid an internal review of the claim, and never directly communicates that the provider will deny future findings.

(Filing Date: 08-23-2011)

WPP Luxembourg Gamma Three Sarl v. Spot Runner, Inc.

Corporations: Sufficiently plead facts demonstrating a misrepresentation or omission in violation of Section 10b -5(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act cannot be extended to a Section 10b-5(a) or (c) fraudulent scheme claim.

(Filing Date: 08-23-2011)

Flexible Lifeline Systems v. Precision Lift

Copyright: In a copyright infringement case, the plaintiff must prove a likelihood of irreparable harm to obtain injunctive relief; the long-standing presumption of irreparable harm upon a showing of likelihood of success on the merits in a copyright infringement case is now impermissible.

(Filing Date: 08-22-2011)

Hershel Rosenbaum v. Washoe County

Criminal Law: The crime for which there is probable cause need not be related to the crime for which an individual is arrested without a warrant. However, the crime which does provide probable cause must be reasonably within the arsenal of crimes that officers enforce in the state. (Modifying Davenport)

(Filing Date: 08-22-2011)

Stearns v. Ticketmaster Corp.

Civil Procedure: When money is withdrawn from a person’s account every month without ever getting notice, they have suffered an injury in fact and may be certified as a class. To be a class representative, you must have actually suffered an actual injury by the unlawful practice.

(Filing Date: 08-22-2011)

Torres v. City of Madera

Civil Law: The standard for judging the objective reasonableness of an officer’s conduct when she mistakenly using her firearm rather than Taser on an individual already arrested, handcuffed, and in the back seat of a patrol car, still remains the “totality of the circumstances.”

(Filing Date: 08-22-2011)

United States v. Clements

Criminal Law: For persons convicted of sex offenses prior to the Sex Offender Registration Notification Act, the registration requirements were not effective until August 1, 2008.

(Filing Date: 08-22-2011)

United States v. Parker

Criminal Law: The State may not prosecute an individual under 18 U.S.C. § 1382 unless that person violates the rule on land which is either owned or under the exclusive right of possession of the military.

(Filing Date: 08-22-2011)

C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School District

Constitutional Law: The law regarding violations of the Establishment Clause by a teacher’s comments is not clearly established and broad claims that such comments were hostile to religion are not particularized enough to deny qualified immunity to teachers.

(Filing Date: 08-19-2011)

Center for Environmental Law and Policy v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Environmental Law: An agency satisfies NEPA “hard look” requirement, when it demonstrates that the foreseeable future impacts have been examined and past and present projects considered.

(Filing Date: 08-19-2011)

Delgado v. Holder

Immigration: The Board of Immigration Appeals has the authority to consider DUI convictions as a “particularly serious crime” for the purposes of withholding removal and asylum.

(Filing Date: 08-19-2011)

Fleischer Studios v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc.

Copyright: In an agreement regarding the purchase agreement of Betty Boop cartoons, the chain of title regarding copyright of the character was carved out. As such, the transfers of copyright made after the agreement did not pass copyright to the plaintiff.

(Filing Date: 08-19-2011)

In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation

Civil Law: When parties in a class action agree to settle, the district court has an independent duty to review the settlement agreement to ensure the reasonableness of the settlement and to guard against collusion amongst parties from seeking their own benefit at the expense of the class.

(Filing Date: 08-19-2011)

M.H. V. USA

Criminal Procedure: Under the Required Records Doctrine, the Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate oneself does not apply to a subpoena to bring forward documents relating to the ownership of foreign bank accounts.

(Filing Date: 08-19-2011)

Ren v. Holder

Immigration: Under the Real ID Act of 2005, an immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination must be supported by substantial evidence in light of the totality of the circumstances. Additionally, when corroborative evidence is required by an immigration judge under the Real ID Act the “applicant must be given notice of the corroboration required, and an opportunity to either provide that corroboration or explain why he cannot do so.”

(Filing Date: 08-19-2011)

Rickley v. County of Los Angeles

Civil Law: Under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, “a plaintiff who is represented by her attorney-spouse in a successful civil rights action may be awarded ‘a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.'"

(Filing Date: 08-19-2011)

United States v. Waters

Criminal Law: When considering a sentence modification pursuant to Rule 706, a district court may apply a career offender enhancement during modification proceedings so long as the original sentencing court found that the defendant was eligible for that enhancement.

(Filing Date: 08-19-2011)

Yakima Valley Memorial Hospital v. Washington State Dept. of Health

Civil Procedure: A regulatory statute that creates market power to a private entity but does not delegate regulatory power does not violate the Sherman Act. A regulatory statute that restrains interstate commerce must have specific authorization from Congress to avoid violating the dormant Commerce Clause.

(Filing Date: 08-19-2011)

Ammons v. State of Washington Department of Social and Health Services

Civil Law: In a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit involving the “Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to safe conditions while involuntarily committed” to a state-run hospital, a state actor is not entitled to qualified immunity when he or she “demonstrate a substantial departure from reasonable professional judgment.”

(Filing Date: 08-17-2011)

Miranda v. Braatz

Indian Law: Since the Indian Civil Rights Act only has a one-year sentencing cap for “any one offense” and not a one-year sentencing cap for crimes stemming from a single transaction, the tribal member’s 910 day sentence was proper since the member had eight separate offenses with which she was charged.

(Filing Date: 08-17-2011)

Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Company

Civil Procedure: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, a claim filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, each barrier that contributes to the discrimination must be listed in the original complaint. A court will not consider an expert report amendment to a complaint unless it has been filed on time and proper notice has been given to the parties.

(Filing Date: 08-17-2011)

Ronald Yonemoto v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs

Civil Law: An agency does not fulfill its obligation under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, when it offers to supply documents to a requester only to their capacity as an employee of that agency. Also, where details in a Vaughn index are entirely inadequate to determine whether a substantial privacy interest is at stake, the Court cannot perform de novo review and must remand.

(Filing Date: 08-17-2011)

Dougherty v. City of Covina

Criminal Procedure: A search warrant lacks probable cause when “the only evidence linking the suspect’s attempted child molestation to possession of child pornography is the experience of the requesting police officer, with no further explanation.” Because the Ninth Circuit “ha[d] not previously addressed this question” the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.

(Filing Date: 08-16-2011)

Howard v. Criminal Information Services

Civil Law: Bulk purchase of personal information from Department of Motor Vehicle records is not, in and of itself, a violation of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (“DPPA”), 18. U.S.C. §§ 2721-2725.

(Filing Date: 08-15-2011)

In Defense of Animals v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior

Civil Law: An interlocutory appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction is moot when the event the injunction was filed to stop has already occurred.

(Filing Date: 08-15-2011)

Nevada Department of Corrections v. Cohen

Constitutional Law: The Nevada Department of Corrections does not violate 14th Amendment Due Process of inmates when it provides notice of and opportunity to comply with a typewriter ban that reasonably advances a legitimate security goal.

(Filing Date: 08-15-2011)

United States v. Vasquez

Criminal Procedure: A search warrant which incorrectly lists a defendant’s rank and position in a criminal organization is still valid if, despite the error, the issuing magistrate would still have a substantial basis in believing that there was a “fair probability” evidence of criminal activity would be found.

(Filing Date: 08-15-2011)

ALADS v. County of Los Angeles

Constitutional Law: A constitutionally protected property interest requiring due process does not change or halt when felony charges are alleged against law enforcement officers.

(Filing Date: 08-12-2011)

Baldwin v. Sebelius

Constitutional Law: A generalized grievance, without a genuine threat of prosecution, fails to show an injury in fact and is not sufficient to give plaintiffs standing.

(Filing Date: 08-12-2011)

Lee v. Corinthian Colleges

Civil Procedure: Reliance on a safe harbor provision is not sufficient to negate the requisite scienter of the Federal False Claims Act.

(Filing Date: 08-12-2011)

Pinto v. Holder

Immigration: When the Bureau of Immigration Affairs remands an Immigration Judge’s grant of asylum back for consideration of a grant of voluntary departure, the decision is considered a final order or removal and the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

(Filing Date: 08-12-2011)

United States v. Marguet-Pillado

Immigration: The “law of the case doctrine” does not apply in a criminal trial where the instruction was intended enforce the government’s burden to prove alienage as an element of a § 1326 violation, regardless that defendant’s theory of derivative citizenship was rejected on a previous appeal.

(Filing Date: 08-12-2011)

Blue Lake Rancheria v. United States

Tax Law: Under 26 U.S.C. § 3306(c)(7), employee services are exempt from the Federal Unemployment Tax Act tax liability when they are performed for an Indian tribe acting as a common-law employer.

(Filing Date: 08-11-2011)

United States v. Aguila-Montes de Oca

Criminal Procedure: The “modified categorical approach” to determine if the government can “use prior state conviction to enhance certain federal sentences” is applicable to both “divisible” statutes and to statutes “missing” an element of the generic crime.

(Filing Date: 08-11-2011)

Brandt v. American Bankers Insurance

Civil Procedure: Where the court finds that a defendant acted culpably when the defendant failed to respond to the complaint, the court is not precluded, as a matter of law, from setting aside the default judgment for excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Procedure 60(b)(1).

(Filing Date: 08-10-2011)

Soriano-Vino v. Holder

Immigration: When an Immigration and Naturalization Service officer obtains information from an individual’s own statements and residency card, it is not violating the confidentiality provision of the Special Agricultural Workers program.

(Filing Date: 08-10-2011)

Viewtech Inc. v. United States

Civil Procedure: The IRS was not required to give notice of their summonsing a taxpayer and a company’s bank records, as the summons was issued to help the IRS collect the taxpayer’s debt.

(Filing Date: 08-10-2011)

Wood v. Sinclair

Habeas Corpus: Under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), the statement, “[he] will be prepared to proceed without counsel,” is not “an expression of an unequivocal desire to represent himself” and does not entitle appellants to relief under an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

(Filing Date: 08-10-2011)

Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc.

Civil Procedure: A Rule 68 offer of judgment to the class representative does not render a class action suit moot when the representative may still timely file for class certification. Such filing will relate back to the date the claim was filed.

(Filing Date: 08-09-2011)

CollegeSource v. AcademyOne

Civil Procedure: Misappropriation of material by an agent, not in the forum, on behalf of a defendant, also not in the forum, may still provide sufficient grounds for a court to find specific personal jurisdiction in the forum.

(Filing Date: 08-08-2011)

Mavrix Photo v. Brand Technologies

Civil Procedure: A corporation that deliberately and continuously exploits a market in the forum state, is subject to specific personal jurisdiction when it satisfies purposeful direction of activities within the forum state and purposefully avails itself to the privilege of conducting activities within the forum.

(Filing Date: 08-08-2011)

United States v. Aguilar-Reyes

Civil Procedure: FRCP 35(a), which allows a district court to modify a sentence of imprisonment within fourteen days after sentencing, is jurisdictional and not merely a time-related directive. Thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction when it resentenced the defendant fourteen days after the original sentence ruling.

(Filing Date: 08-08-2011)

United States v. Della Porta

Criminal Procedure: A judge does not abuse his discretion or unduly influence a jury when he allows supplemental closing arguments without identifying specific issues that have deadlocked a jury.

(Filing Date: 08-08-2011)

United States v. Washington

Criminal Procedure: The use of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) may not be used like 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to reopen appellate cases without the § 2255 requirement for a certificate of appealability.

(Filing Date: 08-08-2011)

Ginsberg v. Northwest, Inc.

Civil Procedure: The Airline Deregulation Act (“ADA”) does not preempt a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, because state enforcement of the covenant does not “force the Airlines to adopt or change their prices, routes or services – the prerequisite for ADA preemption.”

(Filing Date: 08-05-2011)

K2 America Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas

Civil Procedure: Federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving lands held in trust by the United States for Indian allottees where the Indian allottees are not party to the case and the precise dispute at issue does not arise under federal law.

(Filing Date: 08-05-2011)

United States v. Stinson

Criminal Procedure: Defendant’s convictions of RICO conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 3237 and defendant Stinson’s conviction of a VICAR crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(1) were confirmed after appealing thirteen procedural decisions.

(Filing Date: 08-05-2011)

Estate of Petter v. CIR

Tax Law: An audit of a person’s taxes is not a condition precedent to make a transfer effective for the purpose of a charitable gift.

(Filing Date: 08-04-2011)

Johnson v. Lucent Technologies

Disability Law: Since a § 1981 retaliation claim was subject to the federal four-year statute of limitations and not the state law’s two-year statute of limitations, the claim was timely. Furthermore, in an IIED claim, since the two possibly harmful events occurred less than two years before a complaint was filed, the court could not determine if the claim was time barred. Finally, since the defendant failed to alert the court to what new facts could have been alleged in his later claims, the claims were properly dismissed.

(Filing Date: 08-04-2011)

United States v. Bingham

Criminal Procedure: A defendant’s leadership involvement in prison gang operations to promote and orchestrate acts of murder, racketeering and conspiracy, is sufficient for supporting convictions of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ACT (“RICO”) and for committing violent crimes in aid of racketeering (“VICAR”).

(Filing Date: 08-04-2011)

United States v. Espinoza-Baza

Immigration: The defense of derivative citizenship is not appropriate where the theory is not supported in the record by a factual foundation and the proffered evidence is no more than a mere “scintilla of evidence.”

(Filing Date: 08-04-2011)

Close v. Thomas

Habeas Corpus: The Court denied Close and nine other prisoners habeas corpus petitions, holding that the plain language of the statute does not allow BOP to determine RDAP waitlist positions based on a potential early release date after successful completion of the program.

(Filing Date: 08-03-2011)

In re: Palmdale Hills Property

Bankruptcy Law: In chapter 11 bankruptcies, equitable subordination violates an automatic stay when it “has the effect of taking a valid, enforceable claim and its accompanying lien from the debtor’s estate.”

(Filing Date: 08-03-2011)

Perfect 10 v. Google

Copyright: In a case for preliminary injunction relief, a plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits does not create a presumption that there will be a likelihood of irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted.

(Filing Date: 08-03-2011)

United States v. Houston

Criminal Procedure: The offering of new, potentially exculpating evidence by the prosecution to the defense during the cross-examination of a witness does not constitute a Brady violation when the value of that evidence was first learned by the parties during the testimony of the witness.

(Filing Date: 08-03-2011)

United States v. McCarty

Criminal Procedure: A TSA screener’s search of checked luggage occurs “within the scope of the ongoing lawful administrative search” when the discovery of contraband coincides with the search for explosives and safety hazards.

(Filing Date: 08-03-2011)

Walls v. Central Contra Costa Transit Auth.

Administrative Law: After the signing of a Last Chance Agreement, an employee may not be considered an at-will employee and thus requires notice prior to dismissal.

(Filing Date: 08-03-2011)

Alpha Delta v. Reed

Constitutional Law: A student group denied status at a public university does not violate freedom of speech or association if the reason is viewpoint-neutral. A triable issue of fact exists under the free exercise clause and equal protection clause when a public university does not comply with its own nondiscrimination policy.

(Filing Date: 08-02-2011)

Getz v. The Boeing Company

Civil Procedure: Defendants were entitled to a contractor defense when the United States approved reasonably precise specification of the defendants’ product, the defendant’s equipment conformed to those specifications, and the supplier warned the U.S. about known dangers of the product.

(Filing Date: 08-02-2011)

Lee v. Lampert

Criminal Law: A credible claim of actual innocence constitutes an equitable exception to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s (1996) limitations period, and a petitioner who makes such a showing may pass through to Schlup gateway.

(Filing Date: 08-02-2011)

United States v. Stanley

Criminal Procedure: Consent to search a computer by an individual thought to be a co-owner will survive Fourth Amendment scrutiny when the searching officer believed, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the consenting individual had authority.

(Filing Date: 08-02-2011)

Jachetta v. United States

Civil Procedure: Although 25 U.S.C. § 345 waives sovereign immunity of the federal government in condemnation proceedings, it does not do so for inverse-condemnation actions; 25 U.S.C. § 345 does not extend waiver of immunity against states.

(Filing Date: 08-01-2011)

Payne v. Peninsula School District

Civil Procedure: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires remedy exhaustion under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l) when (1) there is an IDEA claim or a functional equivalent, (2) if plaintiff seeks prospective injunctive relief to alter their Individual Education Program, or (3) if plaintiff is seeking to enforce rights that arise as a result of a denial of public education. In addition the exhaustion requirement is a claims processing provision and not a jurisdictional requirement.

(Filing Date: 07-29-2011)

Greenway v. Schriro

Criminal Procedure: Under AEDPA, a federal habeas petitioner must exhaust their claims in state court before petitioning a federal court by “fully and fairly presenting” the factual and legal basis for the claim to the state court. It is enough to satisfy the fair presentation requirement when the petitioner includes the operative facts and legal basis for the claim in an amended post-conviction relief petition.

(Filing Date: 07-28-2011)

Hoye v. City of Oakland

Constitutional Law: Laws requiring consent to speak to patients approaching abortion clinics are valid if they do not discriminate based on speech content; discriminatory enforcement of such laws is not constitutional and must be remedied by the district court.

(Filing Date: 07-28-2011)

TrafficSchool.com, Inc. v. Edriver, Inc.

Corporations: In a claim under the Lanham Act, “when the plaintiff competes directly with defendant, a misrepresentation will give rise to a presumed commercial injury that is sufficient to establish standing.”

(Filing Date: 07-28-2011)

United States v. Spentz

Criminal Procedure: A defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction unless he offers minimal evidence which satisfies all elements of the defense; a multi-million dollar payoff for stealing cocaine from a drug cartel does not satisfy the inducement prong of entrapment.

(Filing Date: 07-28-2011)