McKnight v. Uber Techs., Inc.
Under In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 951 (9th Cir. 2015), there are three factors to consider a class settlement a coupon settlement: 鈥(1) whether class members have 鈥榯o hand over more of their own money before they can take advantage of鈥 a credit, (2) whether the credit is valid only 鈥榝or select products or services,鈥 and (3) how much flexibility the credit provides, including whether it expires or is freely transferable.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Clark v. Weber
The California prohibition on voting for the recalled governor as their own replacement on a recall ballot is not a severe restriction on the right to vote; similar to a term limit, the restriction is a 鈥渘eutral candidacy qualification鈥 with no distinction based on a protected class or arbitrary factor. Bates v. Jones, 131 F.3d 843, 847 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); see Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
Valiente v. Swift Transp. Co.
The Supreme Court has provided a two-prong test for determining when the doctrine of anti-retroactivity applies: (1) a court must determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach; and (2) a court must assess whether the action would have an impermissible retroactive effect.听Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 263-64, 280 (1994).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
United States v. Kirst
鈥淎n administrative investigation is a 鈥榩roceeding鈥 within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. [搂] 1505.鈥 United States v. Vixie, 532 F.2d 1277, 1278 (9th Cir. 1976) (per curiam). Wrongful intent 鈥渕ay be inferred from circumstantial evidence.鈥 United States v. Dearing, 504 F.3d 897, 901 (9th Cir. 2007)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Collier v. Lincoln Life Assurance Co. of Bos.
When a district court applies de novo review to an administrator鈥檚 denial of benefits, it affords no deference, evaluating only whether the correct choice was made. Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc).
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
Rodriguez Diaz v. Garland
When evaluating alleged due process violations, courts weigh three factors: 鈥渇irst, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government鈥檚 interest.鈥 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). The private interest of a detained alien under 搂 1226(a) is lower than that of a detained U.S. citizen, and the governmental interests are significantly higher in the immigration detention context. In all events, 鈥淸d]ue process does not . . . require two hearings.鈥 Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 267 n.14 (1970).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Becerra
鈥淸B]ecause the canons of construction applicable in Indian law are rooted in the unique trust relationship between the United States and the Indians, . . . statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit.鈥 Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 759 (1985).
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
In re Tillman
搂724(a) concerns the trustee鈥檚 avoidance of qualifying liens, 搂 522 withdraws the property interest from the bankruptcy estate and is thus beyond the reach of the trustee for distribution for creditors.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Smartt v. Kijakazi
"When faced with contradicted medical testimony, an ALJ must provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record for rejecting a treating physician's opinion". Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
U.S. v. Nishida
A nonjudicial officer "may not decide the nature or extent of the punishment imposed upon a probationer...since under our constitutional system the right to impose the punishment provided by law is judicial. United States v Stephens, 424 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Borden v. Efinancial, LLC
In determining a violation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), an autodialer must have the 鈥渃apacity to use a random or sequential number generator to either store or produce telephone numbers to be called.鈥 Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, 141 S. Ct. 1163 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Farlow v. Kijakazi
Under Social Security regulations, "[o]pinions from treating physicians receive more weight than opinions from examining physicians, and opinions from examining physicians receive more weight than opinions from non-examining physicians."听Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995). "To reject the uncontested opinion of an examining or treating doctor, an ALJ must provide 'clear and convincing' reasons supported by substantial evidence."听Id.听at 830.
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Hooper v. Brnovich
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is the principle that 鈥渁 state-court decision is not reviewable by lower federal courts,鈥 and federal district courts are prevented from exercising subject matter jurisdiction and the de facto equivalents of such appeals.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Prescott v. Santoro
To establish a prima facie case of actual innocence, it requires more than asserting insufficient evidence to support his conviction. 28 U.S.C. 搂 2254(d)(2); Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463, 476鈥77 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). It must be more likely than not that no reasonable fact finder could find Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, when taking the new evidence into consideration with the full record. Jones v. Taylor, 763 F.3d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Barclay v. Boskoski
11 U.S.C. 搂 522(f) 鈥渆stablishes as the baseline, against which impairment is be measured, not an exemption to which the debtor 鈥榠s entitled,鈥 but one to which he 鈥榳ould have been entitled.鈥欌 Owen v. Owen, 500 U.S. 305, 311 (1991). The Court applies a state exemption law in effect on the filling date of the bankruptcy petition rather than on the creation date of the lien.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Mejia v. Miller
Under Bivens, 鈥渁n implied damages remedy鈥 when federal officers perform an unreasonable search and seizure. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Egbert, limits the availability of a Bivens cause of action in "new contexts" if there is,听鈥淸A]ny rational reason ... to think that Congress is better suited to weigh the costs and benefits鈥 is enough to preclude extending Bivens."听Egbert v. Boule, 142 S. Ct. 1793, 1805 (2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Qualified Immunity
Punchbowl, Inc. v. AJ Press, LLC
Under the Rogers test, the defendant must first 鈥渕ake a threshold legal showing that its allegedly infringing use is part of an expressive work protected by the First Amendment.鈥 Gordon v. Drape Creative, Inc., 909 F.3d 257, 264 (9th Cir. 2018). If the defendant meets this burden, the Lanham Act does not apply unless 鈥渢he defendant鈥檚 use of the mark (1) is not artistically relevant to the work or (2) explicitly misleads consumers as to the source or the content of the work.鈥 Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
San Antonio Winery, Inc. v. Jiaxing Micarose Trade Co.
Under 15 U.S.C. 搂 1051(e), a trademark applicant may 鈥渆ither designate a U.S. person to be served with notice of process or submit to service through the director of the Patent Trademark Office.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.
A party seeking to invalidate a copyright registration under 搂 411(b) must demonstrate that (1) the registrant submitted a registration application containing inaccuracies, (2) the registrant knew that the application failed to comply with the requisite legal requirements, and (3) the inaccuracies in question were material to the registration decision by the Register of Copyrights. Roberts v. Gordy, 877 F.3d 1024, 1030 (11th Cir. 2017). A copyright registration certificate is relevant evidence of the validity of the copyright in question. United Fabrics Int鈥檒, Inc. v. C&J Wear, Inc., 630 F.3d 1255, 1257 (9th Cir. 2011). A remittitur must reflect the maximum amount sustainable by the proof. But where the method the jury used to calculate its award can be ascertained by a review of the verdict, the judge is responsible for preserving the jury鈥檚 findings to the greatest extent possible by using that method of calculation in determining the remittitur amount.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Magassa v. Mayorkas
搂 1981 prohibits intentional discrimination and promises 鈥淸a]ll persons鈥 the right to 鈥渕ake and enforce contracts.鈥 42 U.S.C. 搂 1981(a). The statute provides that 鈥淸t]he rights protected by this section are protected against impairment by nongovernmental discrimination and impairment under color of State law.鈥 Id. 搂 1981(c). When evaluating procedural due process claims, the Court weighs the plaintiff鈥檚 鈥(1) liberty [or property] interests; (2) the risk of an erroneous . . . deprivation through the current traveler redress procedures, and the probable value of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the government鈥檚 interest in national security, including the administrative burdens that additional procedural requirements would entail.鈥 Kashem v. Barr, 941 F.3d 358, 364, 377 (9th Cir. 2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Online Merchants Guild v. Maduros
Under the TIA, "district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State." 28 U.S.C.听搂 1342.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Jones v. Ryan
IAC claims require the defendant to show that (1) 鈥渃ounsel鈥檚 performance was deficient,鈥 and (2) 鈥渢he deficient performance prejudiced the defense.鈥 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Counsel鈥檚 failure to investigate and present evidence of a defendant鈥檚 mental defect constitutes deficient performance. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 396 (2000). Additionally, the failure to 鈥渕ake even [a] cursory investigation鈥 into available means of obtaining additional funding for expert witnesses may amount to deficient performance under Strickland. See Hinton v. Alabama, 571 U.S. 263, 274 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Ray v. Los Angeles Cnty. Dept. of Pub. Social Servs.
Under Bonnette v. Cal. Health & Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1983), an entity is a joint employer if the entity 鈥(1) had the power to hire and fire [] employees, (2) supervised and controlled employee work schedules or conditions of employment, (3) determined the rate and method of payment, and (4) maintained employment records.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Galvez v. Jaddou
"To determine whether the district court abused its discretion in entering the injunction, look to whether the trial court identified and applied the correct legal rule to the relief requested.鈥 United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1263 (9th Cir. 2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Green v. Miss United States of America
The First Amendment ensures that 鈥淐ongress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,鈥 which includes 鈥渧arious forms of entertainment and visual expression as purely expressive activities.鈥 U.S. Const. amend. I.; Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach, 621 F.3d 1051, 1060 (9th Cir. 2010). These protections extend to theatrical productions that 鈥渇requently mix[] speech with live action or conduct,鈥 and beauty pageants fall within this ambit. Se. Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 558 (1975).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Save the Bull Trout et al. v. Williams
Claim preclusion bars a party in successive litigation from pursuing claims that were rained or could have been raised in a prior action. Media Rts. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 922 F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir. 2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure