Samuel Watkins, a copyright attorney, submitted multiple FOIA requests to ports operated by the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection seeking unredacted Notices of Seizure for allegedly counterfeit merchandise under 19 C.F.R. § 133.21(c) from 2005-2007. The agency provided only heavily redacted versions, citing FOIA exemptions including 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4) for confidential commercial information that could cause competitive harm if released. The district court granted summary judgment to CBP, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that details such as importer, exporter, and manufacturer names and addresses constituted confidential information whose disclosure would likely result in substantial competitive injury. The court reasoned that importers provide this data under assurances of confidentiality during entry, that seizure notices create a rebuttable presumption of counterfeiting, and that the agency's showing satisfied the requirements for withholding despite the strong presumption favoring disclosure.
The case involved two minor children suing California Highway Patrol Officer Stephen Markgraf under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming he violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to a familial relationship by fatally shooting their mother, Susan Eklund, after a high-speed chase in which she rammed police vehicles. The district court denied the officer's motions for summary judgment and judgment as a matter of law based on qualified immunity, and a jury found in the plaintiffs' favor. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that Markgraf was entitled to qualified immunity because no prior case law clearly established that his split-second decision to shoot—made while fearing for the safety of fellow officers during the chase—violated the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. The court reversed the denial of qualified immunity and vacated the award of attorneys' fees.
In Collins v. Gee West Seattle LLC, former employees sued their employer under the federal WARN Act after the company announced it would close its auto dealerships due to financial losses and shut down operations without providing 60 days' advance notice. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer, holding that roughly 120 workers who stopped reporting after the announcement had "voluntarily departed" and therefore did not suffer an "employment loss" triggering the notice requirement. The Ninth Circuit reversed, ruling that an employee's departure prompted by a business closure does not qualify as voluntary under the statute; instead, it constitutes an employment loss, so the employer must either give the required notice or establish a defense. The court remanded for further proceedings on any remaining issues such as defenses or the sufficiency of notice.
In Rezner v. Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank AG, plaintiff John Rezner sued the bank under RICO and California's Unfair Competition Law for its role in a CARDS tax shelter scheme that defrauded the IRS of tax revenue, which Rezner had participated in to generate apparent capital losses. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of summary judgment on the bank's PSLRA defense but reversed the grant of summary judgment to Rezner on his RICO claim. The court held that Rezner failed to establish proximate causation under RICO because the primary victim of the fraud was the United States, not Rezner himself, distinguishing the case from Bridge v. Phoenix Bond. It also vacated the summary judgment on the UCL claim, which had been based on the RICO violation, and remanded for further proceedings.
This case involved whether a non-union flooring company, Simas Floor, could be held liable for the withdrawal liability of its union-affiliated sister company, M&M Installation, under ERISA and the MPPAA after M&M ceased operations and stopped contributing to the Resilient Floor Covering Pension Fund. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Pension Fund on an alter ego theory, holding that liability requires both commonality between the companies and an abuse of the double-breasted structure to evade withdrawal obligations. The court remanded for application of this standard instead of the district court's focus on whether the actions undermined ERISA purposes. It affirmed the district court's ruling that the Pension Fund could not accelerate the withdrawal payments due to a failure to cure default within the statutory period.
In this case, insurance company defendants appealed the district court's denial of their request for expert witness fees and double costs under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 68 after prevailing in a breach of contract and bad faith insurance lawsuit brought by policyholders over a denied claim to raze and rebuild their home. The district court had held that Arizona Rule 68 conflicted with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, under which defendants could not recover such costs when judgment was entered in their favor. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the state and federal rules occupy the same field of operation for defendant offers of judgment, creating a direct conflict that requires application of the federal rule in this diversity action under the Erie doctrine.
