In an action challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative restricting the definition of marriage to the union of a man and a woman, denial of a prospective intervenor's application to intervene is affirmed where the existing parties would adequately represent its interests.

Read Perry v. Prop. 8 Official Proponents, No. 09-16959

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted November 4, 2009

Filed November 19, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge McKeown

Counsel

For Appellant:

Mary E. McAlister and Mathew D. Staver, Liberty Counsel, Lynchburg, VA

For Appellees:

Matthew D. McGill and Theodore B. Olson, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC

Charles J. Cooper and Howard C. Nielson, Cooper and Kirk, PLLC, Washington, DC

In an action for indemnification based on the settlement of an underlying suit against plaintiff for violations of the False Claims Act (FCA), judgment on the pleadings for defendant is reversed where: 1) the facts articulated in plaintiff's complaint were sufficient to state a claim for damages independent of the question of plaintiff's liability under the FCA; and 2) the district court erred in characterizing the settlement as effectively establishing FCA liability and thus barring the claims against defendant.

Read Cell Therapeutics Inc. v. Lash Group Inc., No. 08-35619

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted August 31, 2009

Filed November 18, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge McKeown

Counsel

For Appellant:

Daniel J. Dunne and Paul F. Rugani, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Seattle, WA

For Appellee:

Raymond A. Cardozo, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA

Laurie M. Thornton, Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner & Preece LLP, Seattle, WA

In an action seeking a declaratory judgment that plaintiff's acquisition of the vericheck.com domain name did not constitute trademark infringement or cybersquatting, judgment against plaintiff is vacated and remanded where the district court's factual decision that the "VeriCheck" mark was a distinctive, legally protectable mark under the ACPA and federal trademark law was based in part on reasoning contrary to federal trademark law and based in part on reasoning that could support the district court's conclusion.

Read Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc., No. 08-35001

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted March 9, 2009

Filed November 16, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Gould

Counsel

For Appellant:

Derek A. Newman, Randall Moeller, and John Du Wors, Newman & Newman, Attorneys at Law, LLP, Seattle, WA

For Appellee:

Shannon M. Jost and Aviva Kamm, Stokes Lawrence, P.S., Seattle, WA

Defendant's conviction for possession of a firearm "in furtherance of" a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 924(c) is affirmed where, when one accepts a gun in exchange for drugs, the gun is an integral part of the drug sale because without the gun -- the "currency" for the purchase -- the drug sale would not take place.

Read US v. Mahan, No. 08-30475

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted October 6, 2009

Filed November 16, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge O'Scannlain

Counsel

For Appellant:

Terri Wood, Eugene, OR

For Appellee:

Frank R. Papagini, Jr., Karin J. Immergut, Assistant United States Attorneys for the District of Oregon, Eugene, OR

In an action claiming that the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act infringed the right to travel because it penalized federal employees who worked in areas where the prevailing pay rates were lower, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) as to employees in lower-paying areas, the act, if anything, imposed a penalty for staying put, not for traveling; and 2) not everything that deterred travel burdened the fundamental right to travel.

Read Matsuo v. US, No. 08-15553

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted May 13, 2009

Filed November 12, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Kozinski

Counsel

For Appellants:

Gregory K. McGillivary, Woodley & McGillivary, Washington, D.C., for the plaintiffs-appellants.

For Appellees:

Michael Raab, Gregory G. Katsas, Mark R. Freeman, Department of Justice, Washington, DC

In a petition for review of the BIA's order denying petitioner's request to terminate proceedings and his request for cancellation of removal, the petition is dismissed where petitioner's conviction was one related to a controlled substance under 8 U.S.C. section 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), and thus the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over the petition.

Read Bermudez v. Holder, No. 08-72133

Appellate Information

Submitted October 15, 2009*

Filed November 10, 2009

Judges

Per Curiam

Counsel

For Petitioner:

James A. Stanton, Honolulu, HI

For Respondent:

Lindsay E. Williams, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC

Defendant's conviction for illegal reentry into the U.S. is affirmed where, because defendant had not legally left the U.S. on the date of his detention, and he was not entering the U.S. from a foreign country, the official restraint doctrine was inapplicable.

Read US v. Ambriz-Ambriz, No. 08-30431

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted October 13, 2009

Filed November 10, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Callahan

Counsel

For Appellant:

John Rhodes, Johnna Rizza and Stephanie Deboer, Federal Defenders of Montana, Missoula,
MT

For Appellee:

Timothy J. Racicot, Assistant United States Attorney, Missoula, MT

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging that defendants interfered with plaintiffs' constitutional right of familial association by removing their child without a protective custody warrant, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where it was reasonable for officer-defendant to believe the child's statement that she had been abused at the time she spoke with him.  However, the order is vacated in part where local government units such as defendant-county are not entitled to the qualified-immunity defense.

Read Burke v. County of Alameda, No. 08-15658

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted December 6, 2007

Filed November 10, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Nelson

Counsel

For Appellants:

Robert R. Powell, Law Offices of Robert R. Powell, San Jose, CA

For Appellees:

Catherine Wheeler, Andrada & Associates, PC, Oakland, CA

In a Federal Land and Policy Management Act challenge to the exchange of certain private lands for several parcels of land surrounding a mine site and owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where: 1) the BLM should have taken the reasonably probable use of public lands for a landfill into consideration as part of the highest and best use analysis; and 2) as a result of its unreasonably narrow purpose and need statement, the BLM necessarily considered an unreasonably narrow range of alternatives. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the BLM's Record of Decision never became effective, and could not serve as the agency's final action; and 2) the record as a whole established that the BLM's interpretation of "full consideration," as evinced by the analyses in the environmental impact statement at issue, was permissible under 43 U.S.C. section 1716(a).

Read National Parks & Conservation Ass'n. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., No. 05-56814

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted December 6, 2007

Filed November 10, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Pregerson

Dissent by Judge Trott

Counsel

For Appellants:

Tamara N. Rountree, United States Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC

For Appellees:

Deborah Sivas and Noah Long, Stanford Environmental Law Clinic, Stanford, CA

In an appeal from a district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress drug and firearm evidence against him, the order is affirmed where the district court did not err in holding that the drugs and firearm would have been uncovered during a routine inventory search of the vehicle upon impound.

Read US v. Ruckes, No. 08-30088

Appellate Information

Submitted November 9, 2009

Filed November 9, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Tallman

Counsel

For Appellant:

Miriam Schwartz, Office of the Federal Public Defenders for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, WA

For Appellee:

Jeffrey C. Sullivan and Helen J. Brunner, Assistant United States Attorneys, Seattle, WA
for the plaintiff-appellee.