Willamette Law Online

(27 summaries)

Giovonne Vernacchia

9th Circuit Court of Appeals

TitleExcerptFilling Date
San Luis v. JewellEnvironmental Law: A biological opinion is not arbitrary and capricious when it relies on raw numbers and includes adequate support and explanations for its determination that a threatened species’ habitat is in danger; a district court oversteps its bounds when it admits additional expert testimony that the parties have selected, but have not agreed to.(03-13-2014)
United States v. CrowderCriminal Law: 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h) allows a “subsequent lifetime term of supervised release, even when accompanied by a term of imprisonment.”(12-24-2013)
In Re: Stake Center Locating, Inc.Criminal Law: The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act and the Crime Victims’ Rights Act provide victims with “a right to restitution, not a right to criminal forfeiture,” and under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, the government maintains broad discretion in determining whether to “seek forfeiture of assets implicated in an offender’s wire fraud.”(09-26-2013)
United States v. EdwardsSentencing: When sentencing an adult convicted of a crime, the district court does not violate the Eighth Amendment by using prior juvenile convictions to increase the sentence.(08-15-2013)
Islamic Shura Council of So. Cal. v. FBICivil Procedure: A party’s motion for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. Pro 11(c) should not be granted when the challenged pleadings have been “corrected” in an in camera proceeding and the district court has already ruled on the merits of the case.(07-31-2013)
United States v. Botello-RosalesCriminal Procedure: A detective does not reasonably convey Miranda warnings in Spanish when the detective incorrectly uses certain Spanish words.(07-15-2013)
In re: GriffinBankruptcy Law: Providing a duplicate of a duplicate of a promissory note along with a declaration confirming possession of the original note is sufficient for a bank to establish prudential standing to file a motion for relief from an automatic stay.(06-26-2013)
United States v. AveryHabeas Corpus: When seeking habeas corpus relief, actual innocence overcomes the procedural default of a claim challenging the conviction, and a defendant cannot be considered to have been convicted or sentenced based on a broader charge that was not part of the plea agreement. (06-18-2013)
In re: Amy & VickyCriminal Law: Because there is no binding precedent for calculating restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259, it is not an abuse of discretion when a court declines to impose joint and several liability.(05-03-2013)
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.(03-19-2013)
In re: Amy & VickyCriminal 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.(03-18-2013)
United States v. PetriSentencing: 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.(02-08-2013)
United States v. Gallegos-GalindoSentencing: 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.(01-17-2013)
Cooper v. RamosPost-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.(12-27-2012)
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.(12-04-2012)
Stankewitz v. WongHabeas 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.(10-29-2012)
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.(09-28-2012)
Bates v. Mortgage Electronic RegistrationCivil 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.(09-17-2012)
Palomar Medical Center v. SebeliusAppellate 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.(09-11-2012)
City of Redding v. FERCAdministrative 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.(08-27-2012)
Dickens v. RyanHabeas Corpus: A claim under [italics]Martinez v. Ryan[/italics] 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.(08-03-2012)
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.(07-13-2012)
Garamendi v. HeninCivil 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.(06-19-2012)
Hexcel Corp. v. Ineos PolymersCivil 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.(06-01-2012)
Renee v. DuncanEducation 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.(05-10-2012)
Minority Television Project v. FCCFirst 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.”(04-12-2012)
Benson v. JPMorgan Chase BankCivil 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.(03-20-2012)