9th Circuit People and Events News - U.S. Ninth Circuit
U.S. Ninth Circuit - The FindLaw 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in People and Events Category

NVIDIA Corporation makes a bunch of computer chips, including graphics processing units (GPUs) for all your sweet gaming machines. In 2006, NVIDIA began experiencing problems with some of its chips. NVIDIA initially wasn't sure what the problem was, and issued software updates to run the fans of its graphics cards faster to cool down the cards. But that didn't work.

Finally, HP concluded that the problem was the chips themselves. NVIDIA determined that the problem lay in the composition of a new kind of solder used on its chips. In 2008, NVIDIA told its manufacturers to go back to the old solder.

Remember Burnham v. Superior Court? That's the one where a defendant was personally served in California while traveling there on business. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld personal service due to transient presence in the forum state ("tag jurisdiction") as legitimate on its own, without requiring any of the "sufficient minimum contacts" nonsense of International Shoe.

Here's a law school hypothetical for you: What if an officer of a foreign corporation is personally served in the forum state? Does that grant a court personal jurisdiction over the corporation? No it doesn't, said the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Martinez v. Aero Caribbean.

The NCAA has been on the receiving end of a lot of criticism lately -- and rightly so. The NCAA, which has a stranglehold on the top college sports in the United States, sets out rules based on the fiction that college athletes are students first and athletes second, and that they play college sports simply for the love of the game. The rules are also based on the fiction that college sports are not a business. In the meantime, college athletes aren't permitted to earn any money from their athletic skills outside the scholarships their schools offer.

Former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon represents a group of college athletes who are a little peeved that NCAA is making literally millions of dollars licensing their likenesses to anyone with a pulse, including TV stations, merchandise manufacturers, and video game companies. On Friday, Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California agreed, finding the NCAA's rules were an unreasonable restraint on trade.

Another day, another challenge to the Affordable Care Act.

Plaintiffs Nick Coons and Eric Novack were represented in District Court by the Goldwater Institute. (You know where this is headed.) They object to the Affordable Care Act for three reasons: (1) the individual mandate is bad and they don't like it; (2) they don't like the establishment of an advisory program that issues Medicare budget recommendations; and (3) the ACA violates their right to medical autonomy. Oh, and they also claim that an Arizona Health Care Freedom Act, one of many such acts passed in other states, purports to invalidate the ACA individual mandate in Arizona.

Gee, I wonder how this will go.

It's Friday, which means my ability to take anything seriously is absolutely nearing it end. I'm running on fumes here.

Fortunately, eight federal inmates, including three infamous convicted murderers, have supposedly filed a handwritten motion to intervene in the Silicon Valley anti-poaching class action lawsuit. You know, the one where CEOs of major tech companies sent emails back-and-forth, agreeing not to poach each other's staff? The one that reached a settlement agreement for pennies, despite the smoking gun evidence?

The settlement is currently sitting on U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh's desk. Sitting next to it is this handwritten motion -- and in the trashcan nearby, there's another motion that was filed using a California attorney's stolen identity.

Want to spend more time practicing, and less time advertising? Leave the marketing to the experts.

Add Anna Smith to the growing list of plaintiffs involved in lawsuits against the NSA's surveillance program. Smith is as innocuous as they come -- "a mother of two who lives in rural Idaho, works the night shift as a nurse and goes to the gym often," according to The Washington Post. Last year, she (with help from her lawyer/husband) sued the government for violating her Fourth Amendment rights by collecting her telephone data without a warrant.

Although Smith hasn't been particularly injured, her case is notable in that the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho took evidence of NSA wiretapping provided by Edward Snowden as grounds for believing that she, like millions of other Americans with no connection to terrorism, is being spied on. Still, the District Court dismissed Smith's Fourth Amendment claims.

Now, as Boise Weekly reports, she's appealing to the Ninth Circuit.

Want to spend more time practicing, and less time advertising? Leave the marketing to the experts.

It's been a long time coming for Arizona's short-handed federal bench.

The local federal courts have been in a declared "state of emergency" since 2011, reports AZ Central, but the long-awaited reinforcements are on the way. Included in the slate of six are Rosemary Márquez, a defense attorney whose nomination has been pending for 1,057 days, and Diane Humetewa, a former U.S. attorney who will become the first Native American woman ever named to the federal bench, and third Native American overall.

It's been a rough battle to fill the seats, and an interesting turn of events for Humetewa, who was nominated to the bench by the same president who forced her resignation from the U.S. Attorney's Office in 2009.

Peta Lindsay was the Peace and Freedom Party's chosen candidate for President of the United States in 2012. One small problem: she was 27 years old. California, predictably, refused to put her name on the ballot due to her obvious ineligibility.

She sued, claiming First Amendment and Equal Protection violations, as well as a violation of the Twentieth Amendment. (Yeah, we had to look it up too.) In any case, this went exactly as you would expect.

The parties to the case didn't request an en banc rehearing, but at least one judge did.

Smithkline Beecham was a landmark case for gay rights in the Ninth Circuit, even though the case started as a civil suit over HIV drug pricing. A juror was stricken after mentioning his partner during voir dire, presumably on the basis of his sexual orientation.

In January, the Ninth Circuit reversed local precedent and held the heightened scrutiny applied to same-sex discrimination (and by extension, Batson protections apply). It was a huge holding that has major implications for the ongoing Nevada same-sex marriage litigation appeal. The holding may not stand, however, if en banc review leads to a reversal.

America's favorite pastime may be up for debate, but one thing is for sure: The Ninth Circuit is going to hear a case that challenges an antitrust exemption that's been on the books for almost a century.

In a case that is pitting the city of San Jose, California, against Major League Baseball ("MLB"), San Jose will not let up on its dream of luring the Oakland A's to the self-proclaimed "Capital of Silicon Valley."

Will San Jose prevail? We're not sure, but we're going to find out sooner, rather than later.