Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, No. 09-15030, involved an action against credit reporting agencies alleging violations of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA). The court affirmed summary judgment for defendants on the grounds that 1) because the face of plaintiff's superior court complaint lacked any indication of the amount in controversy, it did not trigger the first thirty-day removal period; 2) because section 1785.25(a) was the only substantive CCRAA furnisher provision specifically saved by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, plaintiff's section 1785.25(f) claim was preempted; and 3) unless plaintiff raised a genuine issue as to whether the disputed item was inaccurate, her CCRAA section 1785.16 claims failed as a matter of law.
In In re: Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 08-17372, a securities class action, the court vacated the district court's order awarding attorneys' fees of twenty-five percent of the $117.5 million settlement fund to class counsel, holding that the district court erred under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h) in setting the schedule for objecting to counsel's fee request.
Khadka v. Holder, No. 05-75726, concerned a petition for review of the denial of petitioner's asylum application. The court granted the petition in part on the grounds that 1) the IJ erred in finding petitioner's application to be frivolous because that finding was required to be based on evidence indicating that a material element of the claim was actually false; and 2) the IJ erred by not informing petitioner that he was considering making a frivolousness finding or otherwise giving petitioner sufficient opportunity to account for any of the alleged discrepancies and implausibilities in the record other than those few that supported the government's suspicions that a newspaper article was fabricated.
Toomer v. US, No. 08-56749, involved a wrongful death action based on the death of an individual outside a military base after having been at a nightclub on the base's premises. The court affirmed summary judgment for defendant on the ground that, under California law, the U.S.'s duty to protect plaintiff from foreseeable criminal conduct extended only to the base, not to the restaurant where the killing occurred, which was outside the United States' ownership and control.
In US v. Rivera-Corona, No. 08-30286, the court vacated defendant's conviction for carrying a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, holding that the district court erred in summarily rejecting defendant's request for appointed counsel to replace retained counsel simply because of the expense and the stage of the proceedings.