Pamela Ann Rymer

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.

federal powerbusiness & regulatory

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.

civil rightscriminal law

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.

labor & employment

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.

criminal lawtaxesbusiness & regulatory

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.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

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.

procedure

The case concerned a FOIA request by environmental groups seeking GPS coordinates of Mexican wolf depredation sites collected by the USDA's Wildlife Services program on private ranch land. The district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, ruling that the coordinates were not protected by FOIA Exemptions 3 or 6. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the data fell under Exemption 3 because Section 8791 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 expressly bars disclosure of USDA geospatial information about agricultural operations, and that statute properly applied to the pending litigation even though it took effect after the agency's initial withholding.

environmentprocedure

This case involved organizations and individuals who wanted to place initiatives on the Nevada ballot to change state law but were blocked by statutory requirements. They sued the Nevada Secretary of State, claiming that the single-subject rule, the 200-word description-of-effect requirement, and pre-election challenge provisions violated their First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the Secretary, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court applied a flexible balancing test for election regulations, found that the provisions imposed only a limited burden on protected rights while advancing legitimate state interests in orderly elections, and held that the rules were not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.

electionsfree speech

The case concerned whether Luis Enrique Mendoza, a Mexican citizen who entered the U.S. without inspection in 1983 and was convicted of robbery under California Penal Code section 211 in 2005, was removable under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals found him removable both for unlawful presence and for conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT), which also barred adjustment of status. The Ninth Circuit held that robbery qualifies as a CIMT because it necessarily includes theft, and both the BIA and circuit precedent have long treated theft offenses as involving moral turpitude. The court therefore denied Mendoza's petition for review, confirming his inadmissibility.

immigrationcriminal law

The Nisqually Indian Tribe sued the Washington governor, Squaxin Island Tribe officials, and Frank’s Landing Indian Community members, claiming that an agreement allowing Squaxin to tax cigarette sales at Frank’s Landing breached Nisqually’s own tobacco tax contract with the state and violated various federal and state laws. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants. It held that the federal statutes and state tobacco contract laws invoked by Nisqually do not create a private right of action, and that the contract language granting Nisqually authority over its own retailers in defined Indian country within the Nisqually River basin does not extend exclusivity to Frank’s Landing or prevent the challenged agreement.

federal powertaxesbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a challenge by alien beneficiaries of special immigrant religious worker visa petitions and their employing religious organizations to a federal regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B), that bars them from filing applications to adjust status until after their visa petitions have been approved. The district court held the regulation invalid under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(a) and enjoined its enforcement, but the Ninth Circuit reversed. Applying Chevron deference, the court found the statute silent on the timing of visa petitions relative to adjustment applications and concluded that the agency's requirement of prior approval for religious-worker beneficiaries was a reasonable interpretation, not arbitrary or capricious. The court vacated the injunction and remanded remaining claims, including equal protection and Religious Freedom Restoration Act issues, for further proceedings.

immigrationreligious liberty

In Narouz v. Charter Communications, LLC, the plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit against his former employer alleging various labor code violations and unfair business practices on behalf of non-exempt employees, along with an individual claim for wrongful termination. After reaching a settlement on his individual claims and the class claims, the district court denied class certification for settlement purposes, leading the plaintiff to dismiss his individual claims with prejudice and appeal the certification denial. The Ninth Circuit held that the appeal was not moot because the plaintiff retained a personal stake in the class claims sufficient to maintain jurisdiction under Supreme Court precedents allowing appeals of class certification denials even after settlement of individual claims when interests like cost-sharing are preserved.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case concerns whether former employees who received lump-sum distributions from their ERISA-governed defined contribution pension plans have statutory standing to sue plan fiduciaries for alleged breaches that reduced account values. The Ninth Circuit held that such former employees qualify as "participants" under ERISA's definition if they present a colorable claim for additional benefits, vacating the district court's dismissal (treated as failure to state a claim rather than lack of jurisdiction) and remanding for further proceedings. The court reasoned that the statutory definition covers those who may become eligible to receive benefits, and receipt of a full distribution does not bar claims when the amount was allegedly diminished by fiduciary misconduct, consistent with rulings from other circuits.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved Ian McCown suing the City of Fontana and police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for wrongful detention, false arrest, and excessive force during an arrest following a drug-related complaint in a park. Most claims were dismissed on summary judgment, the remaining excessive force claim settled for $20,000 with McCown stipulated as the prevailing party, and the district court awarded him $200,000 in attorney’s fees plus costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, concluding that the district court had not adequately explained its fee calculation or adjusted the award to reflect McCown’s limited success on claims and damages.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involved plaintiffs who had settled claims for breach of a severance contract with their former employer and then sought attorney's fees under California Labor Code § 218.5. The district court awarded fees to the California-licensed lead counsel but denied recovery for work performed by an Oregon-licensed attorney who assisted behind the scenes without California bar admission, physical appearance in the Central District of California, signing pleadings, or pro hac vice admission. The Ninth Circuit reversed that denial, holding that the out-of-state attorney could recover fees because he maintained only minimal client contact, exercised no direct contact with opposing counsel, was supervised by California counsel who remained solely responsible to the clients, and would likely have been admitted pro hac vice if he had applied. The court affirmed other aspects of the fee ruling and remanded for recalculation consistent with its decision.

labor & employmentprocedure

McCown sued the City of Fontana and its police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging wrongful detention, false arrest, and excessive force during an arrest in a park. After the district court granted summary judgment to the City on the arrest and municipal liability claims, the parties settled the remaining excessive force claim for $20,000, with McCown stipulated as the prevailing party and fees to be determined by the court. The district court awarded McCown $200,000 in attorney’s fees plus costs. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the fee award failed to adequately account for McCown’s limited success—only one of several claims prevailed and the recovery was modest relative to his settlement demands—and that the district court did not sufficiently explain its calculation.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved Augustine Garcia Murillo, who pleaded guilty to being an illegal alien found in the United States after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court imposed a suspended sentence followed by five years of probation that included a condition of twelve months in custody. The Ninth Circuit reversed the sentence and vacated it, holding that district courts lack authority under the Sentencing Guidelines to suspend the imposition of a sentence and may not impose a fixed period of imprisonment as a condition of probation. The court directed that the case be reassigned to a different district judge for resentencing on remand.

criminal lawimmigration

Jeanne Caldwell, a parent involved in California public school science curriculum debates, sued University of California officials and a National Science Foundation program director over the "Understanding Evolution" website, claiming its discussion of religion and evolution endorsed religious viewpoints compatible with evolutionary theory and violated the Establishment Clause by making her feel like an outsider. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing, concluding that her allegations reflected only a generalized grievance rather than a concrete injury. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the asserted harm to Caldwell's interest in accessing information about evolution instruction was too generalized and remote to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement for standing, and that her claim against the NSF defendant had become moot.

religious libertycivil rights

The case concerned whether taxpayer Kazim Acar was entitled to a refund for the 1999 tax year by retroactively electing mark-to-market accounting under I.R.C. § 475(f) to treat securities trading losses as ordinary losses. The IRS Appeals Office denied the claim because the election was filed after the deadline set by Revenue Procedure 99-17 and did not qualify for a time extension under Treasury Regulation § 301.9100-3. The district court granted summary judgment for the government on the timeliness and extension issues. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that Acar had not acted reasonably and in good faith because he used hindsight by seeking the election years later after realizing the tax benefit.

taxesprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves former employees of Bay Environmental Management who participated in ERISA-governed defined contribution retirement plans and sued the company, plan trustees, and investment advisors for breaching fiduciary duties by failing to prudently manage plan assets in anticipation of plan termination. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing as plan "participants" under ERISA because they had already received full lump-sum distributions of their account balances. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that former employees who received distributions still have standing to sue for fiduciary breaches that allegedly reduced their benefits, as they have a colorable claim to additional benefits under the plan. The court joined several other circuits in this interpretation of ERISA's participant definition and remanded for further proceedings.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory