Willamette Law Online

(8 summaries)

Sandy Dhesa

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Bullock v. BerrienCivil 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”.(07-30-2012)
Dennis v. Kellogg CompanyCivil 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”.(07-13-2012)
Braunstein v. Arizona DOTConstitutional 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.(06-27-2012)
Metabolic Research v. FerrellAppellate 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.(06-18-2012)
Lewis v. AyersAppellate 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.”(05-30-2012)
Sexton v. CoznerHabeas 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 [italics]Martinez[/italics] to excuse his procedurally defaulted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel not raised in state court.(05-13-2012)
Balla v. State of IdahoAttorney 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”.(04-17-2012)
Emeldi v. University of OregonCivil 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.(03-02-2012)