David C. Bury

The case involved a challenge by the Center for Biological Diversity against the United States Forest Service alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act in the management of national forests in the Southwest Region, including failure to monitor protected activity centers for the Mexican spotted owl and habitat for the New Mexico ridge-nosed rattlesnake as required by a 2005 biological opinion and incidental take statement. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion by issuing a preliminary injunction that halted the Upper Beaver logging project adjacent to owl habitats and restricted livestock grazing on four allotments during periods when the rattlesnake is present. The core reasoning was that the Forest Service had not fulfilled monitoring obligations under the biological opinion due to funding constraints, resulting in likely exceedance of authorized incidental take, and that authorizing projects during reinitiated consultation constituted a violation of ESA section 7(d) by making irreversible commitments of resources.

environment

In this case, WildEarth Guardians sued the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7(a)(1) and the Administrative Procedure Act, alleging that USFS failed to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to develop its own conservation program for the Mexican gray wolf or to use its authorities to further wolf recovery, particularly by addressing conflicts with livestock grazing permits in the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area that had led to wolf removals. The court determined that USFS had fulfilled its ESA obligations through existing consultation and participation in programs for wolf conservation alongside USFWS, including after the discontinuation of SOP 13 under a prior consent decree. The court therefore denied Guardians' motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of USFS, holding that the agency had utilized its authorities in furtherance of the ESA as required.

environmentfederal power

The case involved Medicare beneficiaries and their attorney challenging the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' practices under the Medicare Secondary Payer provisions, which required prepayment of reimbursement claims before the correct amount was determined through appeals or waivers, and held attorneys financially responsible for turning over clients' injury compensation awards to Medicare. The court addressed two purely legal questions regarding the Secretary's authority under the statute. It held that the statutory scheme does not authorize these practices, granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, certified a class of beneficiaries, and issued an injunction preventing the demands for prepayment and attorney withholding. The decision was based on statutory construction and did not reach the plaintiffs' due process claims.

healthcarefederal power

This case involved a homeowners insurance dispute where plaintiff Juan Echanove sought additional recovery from Allstate for wind storm damage to his property, alleging improper depreciation calculations that underpaid the actual cash value of repairs. Plaintiffs filed suit claiming breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and entitlement to punitive damages after hiring a public adjuster who disputed Allstate's initial payments totaling about $16,792. The court granted Allstate's motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion, ruling that Allstate had promptly investigated, paid undisputed amounts, and later tendered an extra $2,579.72 upon review, with no evidence of unreasonable conduct or an evil mind required for bad faith or punitive damages. The decision rested on the absence of triable factual issues under Arizona insurance law standards for summary judgment.

propertytorts & liability

In Trammell v. Raytheon Missile Systems, the plaintiff alleged that Raytheon violated the ADA and Arizona Civil Rights Act by terminating his employment due to his major depression, which manifested as compulsive gambling. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment after finding no evidence that the termination was based on the plaintiff's disability. The core reasoning was that Raytheon did not learn of the depression diagnosis until after the firing, which instead resulted from the plaintiff's failure to disclose an arrest warrant related to unpaid gambling debts in violation of company reporting rules for a security-sensitive position.

labor & employmentcivil rights

In United States v. Renzi, the district court reviewed a magistrate judge's report and recommendation on defendant Renzi's motion to dismiss the indictment, which alleged that government wiretaps had unlawfully intercepted attorney-client privileged communications in violation of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2518, and the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. The magistrate found multiple violations of Title III and the Fourth Amendment, including failures to minimize, seal, or report privileged calls involving attorneys such as Maria Baier, Glenn Willard, and Kelly Kramer, and recommended suppressing all evidence from the wiretap while denying dismissal of the indictment or disqualification of prosecutors. After de novo review, the district court adopted the report and recommendation in full, holding that the government's execution of the wiretap was unreasonable and exceeded the authorizing order but that these errors did not warrant dismissal or disqualification. The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss and granted suppression of the wiretap evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a breach of contract dispute arising from a 2001 settlement agreement in a prior patent infringement action, under which Marvel agreed to pay Kimble royalties of 3% on net product sales of a web-shooting toy in exchange for assignment of the patent, which expired in 2010. Plaintiffs sued over Marvel's refusal to pay royalties on certain Hasbro-licensed products and recalculation of payments, while Marvel counterclaimed for overpayment and sought a declaration that royalties terminated upon patent expiration. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after de novo review of objections, granting Marvel's motion to terminate royalties post-expiration and Plaintiffs' motion on the definition of net product sales, while denying the remaining motions. The decision rested on the agreement's terms, the patent's expiration, and federal standards for assessing summary judgment disputes under New York contract law.

business & regulatoryproperty

The case involved a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Celaya, who was convicted in state court as an adult of first-degree murder and armed robbery after shooting a man she claimed acted in self-defense. The district court found the petition timely because the one-year AEDPA limitations period was tolled during the pendency of her state post-conviction proceedings until the Arizona Court of Appeals issued its mandate. On de novo review of the magistrate judge's report, the court granted habeas relief on ground one of the petition, dismissed grounds two and three, and ordered Celaya's release unless retrial proceedings began within a set period.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves former Congressman Richard Renzi, who was charged with crimes related to a land exchange scheme and sought to suppress evidence from a Title III wiretap, a search warrant, interviews with his aides, and consensual recordings, arguing that the government's investigation violated the Speech or Debate Clause by capturing privileged legislative acts. The district court denied both motions to suppress, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation after de novo review. The court reasoned that the Speech or Debate Clause does not shield criminal conduct such as bribery or promises of future legislative action, that the wiretap order was narrowly tailored with minimization procedures to avoid non-criminal legislative discussions, and that the privilege does not broadly bar executive branch investigations of potential crimes by legislators. The ruling distinguished these suppression issues from separate motions to dismiss the indictment and directed limited disclosure of certain evidence for further in limine challenges.

criminal lawprocedurefree speech

In United States v. Renzi, Congressman Renzi moved to dismiss an indictment, claiming violations of the Speech or Debate Clause because the charges relied on his legislative acts and such material was presented to the grand jury. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and denied the motions to dismiss. The court reasoned that the Clause protects speech or debate in Congress and acts integral to the legislative process under the two-part test from Miller v. Transamerican Press, but Renzi's negotiations with land exchange proponents were not protected legislative activity and no improper grand jury reliance occurred.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition filed by Charles Bradley Rienhardt, an Arizona state prisoner sentenced to death after his 1996 convictions for first-degree murder, kidnapping, and related charges stemming from the beating, shooting, and abandonment of a victim during a failed drug transaction. After previously dismissing procedurally defaulted claims and denying evidentiary development, the district court reviewed the merits of the remaining claims alleging constitutional violations at trial and sentencing. The court concluded that Rienhardt was not entitled to relief, finding no merit in challenges to the sufficiency of evidence, admission of statements and identifications, application of aggravating factors, or consideration of mitigating evidence under applicable standards of review. The decision affirms the denial of the petition and related post-judgment motions based on the record and governing habeas precedents.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

This case involves a Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit brought by miners and their families against the United States for injuries and a death resulting from a rock fall at the Asarco Mission Mine in 2000, alleging that the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) failed to properly address safety complaints and conduct inspections. After a bench trial on remanded factual issues, the district court ruled in favor of the defendant, dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that MSHA officials exercised discretion in handling anonymous complaints and fulfilled their inspection duties under the Mine Safety Act, and that the miners did not detrimentally rely on these actions as required for liability under Arizona law and the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A(c).

torts & liabilityfederal power

This case involves environmental organizations challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's 2003 Memorandum of Understanding and Standard Operating Procedure 13, which set procedures for controlling Mexican wolves as part of a reintroduction project in the Blue Range Recovery Area, alleging violations of NEPA and the ESA. The court addressed motions to dismiss claims brought under the APA and the ESA's citizen suit provisions, focusing on whether the challenged documents qualified as final agency action and whether non-discretionary duties were at issue. The court denied the motions to dismiss most claims, ruling that SOP 13 represented final agency action that crystallized decisions from the MOU and was reviewable under the APA. It also allowed certain ESA citizen suit claims to proceed under 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(1)(A) while dismissing one claim under section 4(d). The reasoning centered on APA standards for finality and review of agency inaction, along with the scope of ESA citizen suit authorizations for mandatory conservation duties.

environmentprocedure

This ERISA case involved a plaintiff challenging the termination of her long-term disability benefits under the Raytheon plan, which MetLife administered, after she had received benefits for depression and related conditions stemming from family circumstances. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied the defendants' motion, ruling that MetLife abused its discretion by finding the plaintiff was not disabled as of April 18, 2005. The decision rested on the finding that MetLife's review improperly discounted supporting medical opinions and objective evidence from the plaintiff's physicians, failed to account for the combined effects of her impairments on her ability to perform her job, and relied on flawed independent physician consultations that did not align with the plan's requirements for evaluating disability.

labor & employment

This case was an appeal from a bankruptcy court ruling in a Chapter 12 proceeding filed by family farmers under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. The bankruptcy court held that post-petition capital gains taxes arising from the sale of farm assets could not be treated as unsecured non-priority claims under 11 U.S.C. § 1222(a)(2)(A) because a Chapter 12 estate is not a separate taxable entity under the Internal Revenue Code and thus cannot incur administrative expense taxes entitled to priority under § 507. The district court reversed after de novo review, concluding that the taxes could be treated as administrative expenses eligible for the § 1222(a)(2)(A) exception and discharged as unsecured claims, based on the statute's plain language, its purpose of facilitating farm reorganizations, and supporting legislative history from the predecessor bill to BAPCPA.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involves the Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) petitioning the court for unitary status in a desegregation lawsuit based on a 1978 settlement agreement that addressed vestiges of a prior dual school system through specific student assignment plans and other Green factors. The court reviewed compliance over 27 years, including data on programs like the African American Studies Department and their impact on racial balance and educational outcomes. The court denied the petition, ruling that TUSD had not attained unitary status. The core reasoning was that TUSD failed to demonstrate good faith compliance because it did not adequately monitor, track, review, or analyze the ongoing effectiveness of its programmatic changes to achieve desegregation to the extent practicable.

civil rights

This case involved a petition to revoke the defendant's supervised release after he was convicted by a jury of attempted re-entry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 in a separate criminal proceeding. The district court accepted and adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant had violated the conditions of his supervised release by committing a new federal crime. The defendant objected, arguing that his conviction was only for attempted re-entry (which does not qualify as an 'entry' under Ninth Circuit precedent) and that the petition provided inadequate notice because it referred to 're-entry' rather than 'attempted re-entry.' The court rejected these arguments, holding that the petition sufficiently detailed the underlying indictment, conviction, and statutory violation to provide notice, and that the conviction for attempted re-entry properly established a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

immigrationcriminal law

The case concerned whether investor Virginia Thiers could compel broker-dealer ON Equity Sales Company (ONESCO) to arbitrate claims before the NASD alleging failure to supervise representative Gary Lancaster in connection with Thiers' investments in a fraudulent fund that caused her losses. ONESCO filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to halt the arbitration, contending that Thiers was not its customer at the relevant time because the alleged misrepresentations occurred before Lancaster became associated with ONESCO. Thiers moved to compel arbitration under NASD Rule 12200, arguing that her negligent supervision claims arose after Lancaster joined ONESCO and thus fell within the rule's requirements for disputes between a customer and a member or associated person. The court denied ONESCO's motion for a preliminary injunction and compelled arbitration, reasoning that the supervision claims were connected to Lancaster's business activities while he was an ONESCO representative, distinguishing precedent that limited customer status to the time of the underlying fraud.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Alday v. Raytheon Co., retirees sued their former employer under ERISA and the LMRA, alleging that the company violated collective bargaining agreements by requiring them to contribute to the cost of healthcare benefits that had been promised as company-paid coverage until age 65. The defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings to dismiss claims for extra-contractual damages such as mental distress and for punitive damages, while also challenging the proposed class definition. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the punitive and extra-contractual damages claims because ERISA's civil enforcement provisions and Supreme Court precedent limit remedies to plan benefits and do not authorize such additional recovery. The court also granted class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(1) and (b)(2), finding the prerequisites satisfied and that the primary relief sought was declaratory and injunctive, though it directed the parties to refine the class definition to account for releases, specific retirement dates, and qualifying conditions in the agreements.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

The case involves a physician licensed in Arizona who, after being investigated and sanctioned by the Arizona Medical Board for unprofessional conduct related to his practice of nutritional medicine, appealed the resulting censure and probation order to state superior court, where it was affirmed; he then filed a federal lawsuit against board members and out-of-state consultants alleging a conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights to procedural due process and equal protection. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in full and granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court reasoned that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprived it of subject-matter jurisdiction over claims that effectively sought review of the state-court judgment, and that res judicata independently barred the action because the plaintiff had already litigated or could have litigated the same issues and parties in the prior state proceedings. The ruling applied de novo review to the objected-to portions of the report and accepted the unobjected-to recommendations without finding clear error.

civil rightsprocedurehealthcare