U.S. Ninth Circuit

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

2009-11-23T23:22:53Z

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

2009-11-23T15:10:16Z

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

2009-11-20T22:51:51Z

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

2009-11-20T22:47:08Z

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

2009-11-20T22:40:13Z

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

2009-11-20T22:35:58Z

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

2009-11-19T23:33:22Z

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

2009-11-19T23:23:21Z

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

2009-11-18T22:30:57Z

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

2009-11-16T20:47:44Z

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

2009-11-16T20:33:59Z

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

2009-11-12T22:21:21Z

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

2009-11-10T23:49:14Z

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

2009-11-10T23:45:34Z

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

2009-11-10T23:40:41Z

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