U.S. Ninth Circuit: November 2009 News
U.S. Ninth Circuit - The FindLaw 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

9th Circuit November 2009 News

US v. Berger, No. 08-50171

Defendant's bank and securities fraud sentence is vacated where, although the Dura Pharmaceuticals loss causation standard did not apply to criminal securities fraud, the district court applied an erroneous standard of proof in determining total loss for sentencing enhancement purposes.

Read US v. Berger, No. 08-50171

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted June 1, 2009

Filed November 30, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Smith

Counsel

For Appellant:

Paul J. Watford, Jacob S. Kreilkamp, and Alexandra Lang Susman, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA

For Appellee:

Leon W. Weidman and Brent A. Whittlesey, Assistant United States Attorneys, Los Angeles, CA

Becerril v. Pima County Assessor's Office, No. 08-17070

In an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) action claiming that a county office discriminated against plaintiff-employee by reassigning her because of her disability and refusing to engage in the ADA's "interactive process" after she had requested a reasonable accommodation, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) there was no evidence that plaintiff's supervisor reassigned her because her coworkers in the public service section complained about accommodations she received for her disability; and 2) plaintiff did not raise a triable issue on whether her disability substantially limited her in speaking, eating, seeing, sleeping, and thinking and concentrating.

Read Becerril v. Pima County Assessor's Office, No. 08-17070

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted November 3, 2009

Filed November 25, 2009

Judges

Per Curiam

Counsel

For Appellant:

Richard M. Martinez, Law Office of Richard M. Martinez, Tucson, AZ

For Appellee:

Stacey Roseberry, Pima County Attorney's Office, Tucson, AZ

US v. Mohsen, No. 07-10059

Defendant's perjury and fraud convictions are affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly instructed the jury on the materiality element of the perjury and fraud charges; 2) there was no use of the Phase II counts or evidence in the Phase I proceedings of defendant's trial, and thus the bifurcation process was not so manifestly prejudicial as to require reversal; and 3) the district court should have consulted the parties or counsel before responding to the jury's request to see the indictment, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Read US v. Mohsen, No. 07-10059

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted August 31, 2009

Filed November 25, 2009

Judges

Per Curiam

Counsel

For Appellant:

Dennis P. Riordan, Riordan & Horgan, San Francisco, CA

For Appellee:

Amber S. Rosen, Assistant United States Attorney, San Jose, CA

Hernandez-Aguilar v. Holder, No. 06-71945

In a petition for review of the BIA's order removing petitioner from the U.S., the petition is denied where petitioner's conviction for possessing a controlled substance under California Health and Safety Code section 11379(a) qualified as a basis for removability under 8 U.S.C. section 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II).

Read Hernandez-Aguilar v. Holder, No. 06-71945

Appellate Information

Submitted October 6, 2009

Filed November 25, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge W. Fletcher

Counsel

For Petitioner:

Howard Robert Davis, Santa Monica, CA

For Respondent:

Bryan Stuart Beier, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC

US v. Tupuola, No. 08-10422

Defendants' crack cocaine distribution sentences are affirmed where defendants' sentences were not "based on a sentencing range that had subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing Commission" under 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2).

Read US v. Tupuola, No. 08-10422

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted October 14, 2009

Filed November 24, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Beezer

Counsel

For Appellants:

Alexander Silvert, First Assistant Federal Defender, Honolulu, HI

For Appellee:

Beverly Wee Sameshima, Michael K. Kawahara, Assistant United States Attorneys, Honolulu, HI

Boose v. Tri-County Metro. Transp. Dist. of Oregon, No. 08-35878

In an action alleging that the Americans with Disabilities Act required public transit systems to make certain modifications to their programs for disabled riders, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) if the Attorney General was not permitted to make rules about scheduling paratransit trips by vehicle type, then neither could he make rules that effectively required paratransit systems to schedule trips by vehicle type; and 2) the Department of Transportation's public transportation regulations did not adopt and incorporate the Department of Justice's regulations wholesale.

Read Boose v. Tri-County Metro. Transp. Dist. of Oregon, No. 08-35878

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted October 8, 2009

Filed November 23, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge O'Scannlain

Counsel

For Appellant:

Karen Berkowitz, Spencer M. Neal and Ellen Gradison, Oregon Law Center, Portland, OR

For Appellee:

Keith M. Garza and Kimberly Sewell, Oak Grove, OR

Legal Aid Servs. of Or. v. Legal Servs. Corp., No. 08-35467

In a First Amendment challenge to restrictions on lobbying, soliciting clients, participating in class actions, and seeking attorneys' fees imposed on legal aid organizations that received federal grants through the Legal Services Corporation, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the regulations did not discriminate against any particular viewpoint or motivating ideology; and 2) plaintiffs' professed fear that their federal funding might be terminated was not sufficient to support an as-applied challenge.

Read Legal Aid Servs. of Or. v. Legal Servs. Corp., No. 08-35467

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted July 7, 2009

Filed November 23, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Tashima

Dissent by Judge Pregerson

Counsel

For Appellants:

Stephen S. Walters, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, San Francisco, CA

Beverly C. Pearman, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, OR

For Appellee:

William S. Freeman, Palo Alto, CA

Severo v. Comm'r of Int'l Rev., No. 08-70817

In taxpayers' appeal of a tax court decision granting summary judgment for the IRS and permitting it to proceed with its collection action relating to petitioners' 1990 tax liability, the order is affirmed where the statute of limitations regarding collection was tolled during the pendency of petitioners' bankruptcy proceedings.

Read Severo v. Comm'r of Int'l Rev., No. 08-70817

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted October 9, 2009

Filed November 20, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Hall

Counsel

For Appellants:

Michael V. Severo, Law Offices of Michael V. Severo, Los Angeles, CA

For Appellee:

Curtis C. Pett, Department of Justice, Tax Division, Washington, DC

Reed v. Gilbert, No. 08-17384

In a First Amendment challenge to a municipal sign regulation that prohibited all signs without a permit, subject to nineteen enumerated exemptions ranging from directional signs to ideological and political signs, a denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed in part where the regulation was content-neutral and did not impermissibly favor commercial speech.  However, the order is remanded in part where the district court did not address plaintiff's claim that the ordinance unfairly discriminates among forms of noncommercial speech.

Read Reed v. Gilbert, No. 08-17384

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted April 15, 2009

Filed November 20, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge McKeown

Counsel

For Appellants:

Benjamin W. Bull, Jeremy D. Tedesco, Alliance Defense Fund, Scottsdale, AZ

David A. Cortman, Alliance Defense Fund, Lawrenceville, GA

For Appellees:

Robert Grasso, Jr., Kim S. Alvarado, Grasso Law Firm, P.C., Chandler, AZ

Levine v. Vilsack, No. 08-16441

In an action challenging the USDA's enunciation of its position in the Federal Register that there was no specific federal humane handling and slaughter statute for poultry, plaintiffs' appeal is remanded with instructions to dismiss the matter where plaintiffs could not satisfy the redressability requirement for Article III standing because the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act contained no statutory enforcement mechanism.

Read Levine v. Vilsack, No. 08-16441

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted October 7, 2009

Filed November 20, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Wu

Counsel

For Appellants:

Sarah Uhlemann, Jonathan R. Lovvorn and Carter Dillard, The Humane Society of the United States, Washington, DC

For Appellee:

Gregory G. Katsas, Jonathan F. Cohn, Michael S. Raab and Henry C. Whitaker, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC

Delano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape Comm'n, No. 08-16233

In a First Amendment challenge to a state statutory scheme requiring grape growers to fund generic advertising, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where the state agricultural commission's promotional activities constituted government speech that was immune to challenge under the First Amendment.

Read Delano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape Comm'n, No. 08-16233

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted April 15, 2009

Filed November 20, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge McKeown

Concurrence by Judge Reinhardt

Counsel

For Appellants:

Brian C. Leighton, Clovis, CA

For Appellee:

Robert D. Wilkinson and Kendall L. Manock, Baker, Manock & Jensen, Fresno, California, for the appellee.

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

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

Fleming v. Yuma Reg. Med. Ctr., No. 07-16427

In an action for employment discrimination based on plaintiff's disability, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. section 794, extends to a claim of discrimination brought by an independent contractor because the Rehabilitation Act covers all individuals "subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

Read Fleming v. Yuma Reg. Med. Ctr., No. 07-16427

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted February 12, 2009

Filed November 19, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Bybee

Counsel

For Appellant:

Stanley Lubin, Lubin & Enoch, P.C., Phoenix, AZ

Stephanie M. Marnin, Outten & Golden, L.L.P., Stamford, CT, for the plaintiff-appellant.

For Appellees:

Sandra J. Creta, Quarles & Brady L.L.P., Phoenix, AZ

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

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

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

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

US v. Mahan, No. 08-30475

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

Matsuo v. US, No. 08-15553

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

Bermudez v. Holder, No. 08-72133

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

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

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

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

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

US v. Ruckes, No. 08-30088

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.

In re: Cohen, No. 09-70378

In mandamus proceedings seeking to overturn the district court's appointment of a law firm as lead counsel in a securities fraud action, the petition is granted in part where the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act made clear that it was the lead plaintiff who selected lead counsel, not the district court. However, the petition is denied in part where the district court was still entitled to approve or disapprove the lead plaintiff's choice of counsel.

Read In re: Cohen, No. 09-70378

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted September 1, 2009

Filed November 5, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge B. Fletcher

Counsel

For Petitioner:

Michael F. Ram, Levy, Ram & Ollson LLP, San Francisco, CA

For Real Party in Interest:

Jonathan K. Levine and Aaron M. Sheanin, Girard Gibbs LLP, San Francisco, CA

In re: Bender, No. 08-15027

In a bankruptcy adversary action seeking avoidance of the transfer of a parcel of real property from the debtor to defendant, defendant's appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) affirmance of the bankruptcy court's ruling that the doctrine of equitable tolling applied to the trustee's filing of the proceeding is dismissed where the BAP's order was nonfinal.

Read In re: Bender, No. 08-15027

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted September 3, 2009

Filed November 5, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Wallace

Counsel

For Appellant:

Christopher A. LaVoy, Phoenix, AZ

For Appellee:

David W. Engelman, Phoenix, AZ

US v. Hinkson, No. 05-30303

The Ninth Circuit re-states its "abuse of discretion" standard of review, which now requires it to: 1) consider whether the district court identified the correct legal standard for decision of the issue before it; and 2) determine whether the district court's findings of fact, and its application of those findings of fact to the correct legal standard, were illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that could be drawn from facts in the record.  Defendant's murder for hire conviction is affirmed where, applying the re-stated standard, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial.

Read US v. Hinkson, No. 05-30303

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted December 16, 2008\

Filed November 5, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Bea

Dissent by Judge B. Fletcher

Counsel

For Appellant:

Dennis P. Riordan and Donald M. Horgan, San Francisco, CA

For Appellee:

John F. De Pue and Michael D. Taxay, Department of Justice, Washington, DC

Crawford v. Astrue, No. 06-55822

In consolidated appeals from fee awards to attorneys who successfully represented Social Security Disability Insurance claimants in federal court under contingent-fee contracts, the awards are vacated where the district court failed to follow the mandate of Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002), in determining the fee awards.

Read Crawford v. Astrue, No. 06-55822

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted June 22, 2009

Filed November 4, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge B. Fletcher

Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Clifton

Dissent by Judge Bea

Counsel

For Appellants:

Lawrence D. Rohlfing, Santa Fe Springs, CA

For Appellee:

Michael E. Robinson, Department of Justice, Washington, DC

US v. Liera, No. 07-50546

Defendant's alien smuggling conviction is vacated where police unreasonably delayed defendant's arraignment before a magistrate judge to conduct a second interrogation in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 3501(c).

Read US v. Liera, No. 07-50546

Appellate Information

Argued December 10, 2008

Submitted May 5, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Pregerson

Counsel

For Appellant:

Steven F. Hubacheck, Federal Defenders of San Diego, San Diego, CA

For Appellee:

Mark R. Rehe and Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, San Diego, CA

Vivendi SA v. T-Mobile USA Inc., No. 08-35561

In an action alleging RICO violations in connection with defendants' acquisition of a Polish telecommunications company, the dismissal of the action on forum non conveniens grounds is affirmed where the relevant evidence and witnesses were located in Poland and plaintiff was engaging in forum-shopping.

Read Vivendi SA v. T-Mobile USA Inc., No. 08-35561

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted August 3, 2009

Filed November 2, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Bea

Counsel

For Appellants:

Lanny J. Davis, Garret G. Rasmussen, Adam W. Goldberg, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, DC

For Appellees:

Samuel A. Keesal, Jr., Ben Suter, Robert J. Bocko, Keesal, Young & Logan, San Francisco, CA

Robinson v. US, No. 07-17052

In an action against the U.S. for encroachment onto plaintiffs' easement, the dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Quiet Title Act is vacated where the district court needed to determine whether plaintiffs could assert jurisdiction under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Read Robinson v. US, No. 07-17052

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted April 17, 2009

Filed November 2, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Nelson

Counsel

For Appellants:

Joseph P. Mascovich, Randolph Cregger & Chalfant LLP, Sacramento, CA

For Appellee:

Tamara N. Rountree, Environment & Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC

US v. Garcia-Villalba, No. 05-30506

In a drug conspiracy prosecution, the denial of defendant's motions to suppress is affirmed where: 1) the government's application to wiretap defendant's residence contained a full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures would be successful; 2) the issuing judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that the wiretap was necessary; and 3) the district court erred in finding a lack of probable cause to search defendant's residence.

Read US v. Garcia-Villalba, No. 05-30506

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted July 6, 2009

Filed November 2, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge O'Scannlain

Counsel

For Appellant:

Brooks Holland, Gonzaga University School of Law, Spokane, WA

For Appellee:

Michael S. Morgan, Assistant United States Attorney, Seattle, WA

Applied Med. Dist. Corp. v. Surgical Co. BV, No. 09-55155

In an appeal from the district court's denial of an injunction barring defendant from pursuing an action against plaintiff in Belgium, the order is reversed where: 1) the district court applied the wrong legal standard by requiring that the claims in the domestic and foreign action be identical, instead of engaging in the required functional inquiry concerning dispositiveness; and 2) the district court relied on the clearly erroneous factual determination that defendant's Belgian claims, other than goodwill indemnities, were available apart from termination.

Read Applied Med. Dist. Corp. v. Surgical Co. BV, No. 09-55155

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted September 4, 2009

Filed November 3, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Gould

Counsel

For Appellants:

Richard J. Grabowski, Brian M. Hoffstadt and Edward S. Chang, Jones Day, Irvine, CA

For Appellee:

Bruce H. Jackson and Jerry Salcido, Baker & McKenzie LLP, San Francisco, CA

Ulrich v. Comm'r. of Int'l. Rev., No. 08-70718

In an appeal from the tax court's decision denying taxpayers' appeal from an IRS collection due process hearing, the order is affirmed where the taxpayers' waiver of their right to receive a notice of deficiency did not require acceptance by the IRS to become effective, and the taxpayers had waived their pre-collection right to contest liability.

Read Ulrich v. Comm'r. of Int'l. Rev., No. 08-70718

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted September 17, 2009

Filed November 3, 2009

Judges

Per Curiam

Counsel

For Petitioners:

Joe Alfred Izen, Jr., Bellaire, TX

For Respondent:

Nathan J. Hochman and Steven W. Parks, Attorneys, Tax Division, Department
of Justice, Washington, DC

Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, No. 07-15814

In a First Amendment action based on plaintiff's ejection from city council meetings, judgment for defendants is affirmed where the ejection was not on account of any permissible expression of a point of view, and plaintiff was protesting the good faith efforts of the chairperson to enforce the council's rules.

Read Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, No. 07-15814

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted August 3, 2009

Filed November 2, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Bea

Counsel

For Appellants:

Lanny J. Davis, Garret G. Rasmussen, Adam W. Goldberg, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, DC

For Appellees:

Samuel A. Keesal, Jr., Ben Suter, Robert J. Bocko, Keesal, Young & Logan, San Francisco, CA