Recently in Civil Rights Law Category

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

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 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 prisoner's action claiming that an official violated his First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where there were genuine issues of material fact as to the existence of an adverse action against plaintiff, the causation for the adverse action, the chilling of plaintiff's rights, and the relationship of any action to a legitimate correctional goal.

Read Brodheim v. Cry, No. 07-17081

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted September 16, 2009

Filed October 28, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Larson

Counsel

For Appellant:

Joseph David Elford, Americans for Safe Access, Oakland, CA

For Appellee:

Kelli Hammond, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging the improper towing of plaintiff's vehicles under an ordinance that plaintiff contended was preempted by the California Vehicle Code, partial summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where due process did not require the city to provide advance notice each time it towed one of plaintiff's trailers.  Partial summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff could not plausibly assert a substantive due process violation; and 2) plaintiff could not make out a colorable procedural due process claim simply by asserting that the ordinance contravened state law.  (Superseding opinion)

Read Lone Star Sec. & Video, Inc. v. Los Angeles, No. 07-56521

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted May 7, 2009

Order and Opinion Filed October 21, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Fisher

Counsel

For Appellant:

George M. Wallace, Wallace, Brown & Schwartz, Pasadena, CA

For Appellee:

Rockard J. Delgadillo, Laurie Rittenberg, Michael D. Nagle, Deputy City Attorneys, Los Angeles, CA

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action arising from the faulty imprisonment of now-exonerated plaintiff for almost fourteen years, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) there was insufficient evidence that defendants acted in bad faith or without probable cause in apprehending plaintiff; and 2) no municipal liability could exist where no underlying constitutional violation occurred.  (Superseding opinion)

Read McSherry v. Long Beach, No. 06-55837

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted February 14, 2008

Order and Opinion Filed October 20, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Trott

Counsel

For Appellant:

Mark A. Borenstein, Overland Borenstein Scheper & Kim LLP, Los Angeles, CA

For Appellees:

Michael M. Mullins and Nowland C. Hong, Akerman Senterfitt LLP, Los Angeles, CA

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action, defendant's appeal from the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is dismissed as moot where the trial already occurred and there was no longer any compelling reason for the court of appeals to deviate from the general rule preventing it from reviewing denials of summary judgment.

Read Padgett v. Wright, No. 08-16720

Appellate Information

Submitted October 5, 2009

Filed October 14, 2009

Judges

Per Curiam

Counsel

For Appellant:

Todd H. Master, Redwood City, CA

For Appellees:

M. Jeffery Kallis, Andrew V. Stearns, and Steven M. Berki, San Jose, CA

In an action claiming that defendant city and county failed to provide plaintiffs, Latino residents of neighborhoods in the city, with adequate municipal services for discriminatory reasons, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where: 1) given defendants' evidence of a lack of disparity in actual access to sewer services, plaintiffs' statistical evidence was insufficient to give rise to an inference of discriminatory intent; and 2) defendant-county presented valid reasons why it chose to undertake certain infrastructure projects first.  However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the district court erred in dismissing the parties' 2004 property tax agreement as merely an automatic renewal of a past action, and thus dismissing plaintiffs' claims on statute of limitations grounds; and 2) plaintiffs presented evidence of the discriminatory impact of certain city policies which, in turn, created a sufficient inference of discriminatory intent.

Read Comm. Concerning Cmty. Improvement v. Modesto, No. 07-16715

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted May 11, 2009

Filed October 8, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Pollak

Counsel

For Appellants:

Brian Brosnahan, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, San Francisco, CA

For Appellee:

John E. McDermott, Howrey LLP, Los Angeles, CA

In a First Amendment challenge to a city ordinance prohibiting all leafleting of unoccupied vehicles, the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction is reversed where plaintiffs were likely to succeed in demonstrating that the city's justification for its prohibition was insufficient and they otherwise met the requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the prohibition.

Read Klein v. San Clemente, No. 08-55015

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted August 4, 2008

Filed October 2, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Berzon

Counsel

For Appellants:

Michael J. Kumeta, La Mesa, CA

William G. Gillespie, Poway, CA

For Appellee:

Steve Klein, Edwin J. Richards, Julie R. Beaton, M. Courtney Koger, Kutak Rock LLP, Irvine, CA

In an appeal from the district court's order dismissing plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1981 race discrimination claim and compelling arbitration, the order is affirmed in part where the district court did not err in determining that the cost-sharing provision of the parties' arbitration agreement was not substantively unconscionable. However, the ruling is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the question of whether the parties' agreement was unconscionable was for the court to decide; and 2) the district court failed to address whether certain provisions of the agreement were substantively unconscionable.

Read Jackson v. Rent-A-Center West, Inc., No. 07-16164

Appellate Information

Submitted November 21, 2008

Filed September 9, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Thomas

Dissent by Judge Hall

Counsel

For Appellant:

Ian E. Silverberg, Hardy Law Group, Reno, NV

For Appellee:

Michael T. Garone, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, Portland, OR