Chicken Ranch Rancheria v. California
"In a pure federal question case brought in federal court, federal law governs attorney's fees." Disability Law Ctr. of Alaska, Inc. v. Anchorage Sch. Dist., 581 F.3d 936, 940 (9th Cir. 2009). The involvement of state law issues in such a case does not invalidate the rule.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
Galanti v. Nevada Dep't of Corrections
Heck does not preclude an ex-prisoner’s § 1983 claim challenging denial of good-time credits because he could no longer bring that claim in a habeas petition Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 875-76 (9th Cir. 2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Murphy Co. v. Biden
A claim against the president is justiciable if the ultra vires claim alleges that separation of powers principles were violated due to a lack of constitutional and statutory authority. Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Com. Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (1949); Sierra Club v. Trump, 963 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2020).
The president may expand land grants under the Antiquities Act without conflicting with the O&C Act because the Secretary of the Interior retains broad discretion to manage the land relevant to the O&C Act.
- Constitutional Law
Gunn v. Drage
(1) Where Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 requires entry of a separate document as the judgment, judgment is not considered entered until “the judgment or order is entered in the civil docket under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 79(a)” and such a separate document is filed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii). (2) If a defendant moves to strike an anti-SLAPP motion “on purely legal arguments,” courts must analyze the motion under Rules 8 and 12, but where a defendant asserts “a factual challenge,” courts must treat the motion to strike as “a motion for summary judgment,” triggering discovery. Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Ctr. For Med. Progress, 890 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir.), as amended, 897 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2018). (3) “'[A] cause of action arising from a lawyer’s conduct, when the conduct includes advice to a prospective client on pending litigation,’ is also protectable [under the anti-SLAPP statute].” Taheri L. Grp. V. Evans, 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 847, 853 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
San Diego County Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union
"Federal courts lack Article III jurisdiction to review questions of trademark validity unless the plaintiff faces a threat of infringement liability or otherwise suffers a justiciable injury that is fairly traceable to the trademark’s validity." San Diego County Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union, 65 F.4th 1012 (9th Cir. 2023).
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Mayes v. Biden
A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must establish: “(1) actual success on the merits; (2) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (3) that remedies available at law are inadequate; (4) that the balance of hardships justify a remedy in equity; and (5) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” Indep. Training & Apprenticeship Program v. Cal. Dep’t of Indus. Relations, 730 F.3d 1024, 1032 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal citations omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Pyankovska v. Abid
Where defendants’ violate the Federal Wiretap Act, Noerr-Pennington will protect petitioner’s First Amendment rights when the lawsuit in question burdened the individual’s rights as petitioner; it will not act as a carte blanche to violate statutes relevant to the lawsuit in question
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Cal. Rest. Ass’n v. City of Berkeley
“EPCA’s preemption clause establishes that, once a federal energy conservation standard becomes effective for a covered product, ‘no State regulation concerning the energy efficiency, energy use, or water use of such covered product shall be effective with respect to such product[.]’ 42 U.S.C. § 6297(c).”
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
United States v. Michell
In order to find that a plain error was made by the trial court, Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090, 2096-97 (2021) requires that there be (1) an error that is (2) plain and that (3) affects substantial rights. There must be a reasonable probability that, but for the error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
York County v. HP, Inc
“[A] defendant establishes that a complaint is time-barred under §1658(b)(1) if it conclusively shows that either (1) the plaintiff could have pleaded an adequate complaint based on facts discovered prior to the critical date and failed to do so, or (2) the complaint does not include any facts necessary to plead an adequate complaint that were discovered following the critical date.”
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
Silk v. Bond
The probate exception is limited to cases in which the federal courts would be called on to “(1) probate or annul a will, (2) administer a decedent’s estate, or (3) assume in rem jurisdiction over property that is in the custody of the probate court.” Goncalves v. Rady Children’s Hosp. San Diego, 865 F.3d 1237, 1252 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal citations omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States v. Ramos
“After conducting de novo review, the district court ‘may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.’” 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(C).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Porter v. Martinez
Where "expressive" honks are unlawful under Section 27001, the First and Fourteenth Amendment are not violated because Section 27001 blocks all unnecessary honks regardless of their purpose thus making the regulation content-neutral; additionally, Section 27001 passes intermediate scrutiny because the regulation furthers a substantial government interest unrelated to suppression of free expression and the regulation is narrowly tailored to its interest.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Duke v. Gastelo
“Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges; and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Aravelo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Ayanian v. Garland
A motion to reopen will be granted when a petitioner produces new, material evidence that the conditions of their country of origin have changed that sufficiently establishes “prima facie eligibility for the relief sought.” Toufighi v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 996 (9th Cir. 2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Bolden-Hardge v. California State Controller
“Leave to amend should be granted generously, after considering ‘bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.’” Bolden-Hardge v. California State Controller, 63 F.4th 1215, 1221 (2023) (quoting United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011)).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law