Ninth Circuit Splits Over How to Analyze Jurisdictional Amount for Section 7 Action to Enforce Subpoena Under Federal Arbitration Act

In Maine Community Health Options v. Albertsons Cos., Inc., No. 20-35931 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2021), deciding an issue of first impression for the circuit, the judges – following different routes – holds that there is diversity jurisdiction over an action under Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. § 7, seeking enforcementContinue reading “Ninth Circuit Splits Over How to Analyze Jurisdictional Amount for Section 7 Action to Enforce Subpoena Under Federal Arbitration Act”

Dissenting Ninth Circuit Judge Makes “Plea to the Supreme Court” to Fix Interlocutory Appeals of Qualified Immunity

A split panel in Estate of Anderson v. Marsh, No. 19-15068 (9th Cir. Jan. 15, 2021) holds that the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal – at the summary judgment stage – of a denial of qualified immunity. The dissenting judge, though, implores the Supreme Court to review the appellate jurisdiction issue,Continue reading “Dissenting Ninth Circuit Judge Makes “Plea to the Supreme Court” to Fix Interlocutory Appeals of Qualified Immunity”

Three-Judge Panel Can Overrule Circuit Precedent If Its Reasoning Is “Irreconcilable” With Intervening Supreme Court Authority, Holds Ninth Circuit

In Langere v. Verizon Wireless Servs., No. 19-55747 (9th Cir. Dec. 29, 2020), the Ninth Circuit clarifies the standard for when a three-judge panel may overrule circuit precedent in the face of “irreconcilable” Supreme Court authority. It holds that it is not necessary for the prior circuit caselaw to be on all fours with theContinue reading “Three-Judge Panel Can Overrule Circuit Precedent If Its Reasoning Is “Irreconcilable” With Intervening Supreme Court Authority, Holds Ninth Circuit”

Expert Testimony Not Necessary to Prove Existence of Office’s E-Mail Storage, Holds Ninth Circuit

In Clare v. Clare, No. 19-36039 (9th Cir. Dec. 8, 2020), a case concerning a husband’s intrusion into his wife’s work e-mail, the Ninth Circuit reverses exclusion of a declaration about how the office stored data. Andrea Clare sued Kevin Clare under the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA) 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., forContinue reading “Expert Testimony Not Necessary to Prove Existence of Office’s E-Mail Storage, Holds Ninth Circuit”

“Pop Secret” Lawsuit Fails to Fluff, When Ninth Circuit Finds No Article III Standing

In McGee v. Diamond Foods, Inc., No. 17-55577 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 2020), the Ninth Circuit affirms dismissal of a lawsuit against a snack food company alleging adulteration with an unhealthy ingredient, finding no Article III injury in fact. “McGee contends that Diamond engaged in unfair practices, created a nuisance, and breached the warranty ofContinue reading ““Pop Secret” Lawsuit Fails to Fluff, When Ninth Circuit Finds No Article III Standing”

Misdemeanor Trial for On-Board Assault Properly Venued in District Where Plane Landed, Holds En Banc Ninth Circuit

In United States v. Lozoya, No. 17-50336 (9th Cir. Dec. 3, 2020), the Ninth Circuit holds 8-3 that the prosecution of an on-board misdemeanor is venued, under 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a), in the district where the plane lands and not the flyover district where the crime occurred. During a Minneapolis-to-Los Angeles flight, defendant Lozoya “wantedContinue reading “Misdemeanor Trial for On-Board Assault Properly Venued in District Where Plane Landed, Holds En Banc Ninth Circuit”

Defendant Did Not Forfeit Affirmative Defenses by Failing to Answer Second Amended Complaint, Holds Ninth Circuit

In KST Data, Inc. V. Enterprise Servs. LLC, No. 19-55422 (9th Cir. Nov. 17, 2020), the Ninth Circuit holds that the district court erred in granting summary judgment sua sponte in a contact case when it denied the defendant the opportunity to argue its affirmative defenses. “Defendant Enterprise Services, LLC (‘ES’) entered into a contractContinue reading “Defendant Did Not Forfeit Affirmative Defenses by Failing to Answer Second Amended Complaint, Holds Ninth Circuit”

Ninth Circuit Vacates Class-Settlement Fee Award Under Rule 23(h), Rejecting Lodestar-With-Multiplier Calculation in Case Where 96% of Value Is Coupons

In Chambers v. Whirlpool Corp., No. 16-56666 (9th Cir. Nov. 10, 2020), a Ninth Circuit panel affirms a class settlement, but remands the case for a recalculation of the attorney’s fees under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h). The panel finds that awarding the lawyers’ billable hours with a 1.69 multiplier – totaling $14.8 million –Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Vacates Class-Settlement Fee Award Under Rule 23(h), Rejecting Lodestar-With-Multiplier Calculation in Case Where 96% of Value Is Coupons”

Faulty Daubert Rulings No Longer Automatically Require A New Trial, Ninth Circuit Holds En Banc

In United States v. Bacon, No. 18-50120 (9th Cir. Nov. 5, 2020) (en banc), the Ninth Circuit overrules several prior decisions holding that the only remedy for an erroneous ruling on expert testimony under Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Fed. R. Evid. 702 is a new trial. Instead, theContinue reading “Faulty Daubert Rulings No Longer Automatically Require A New Trial, Ninth Circuit Holds En Banc”

An Intervening Change in Law Nearly Always Warrants Modification of Injunction, Holds Ninth Circuit

In State of California v. EPA, No. 19-17480 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2020), the Ninth Circuit holds that the district court abused its discretion by denying the Environmental Protection Agency’s motion for relief from a court-imposed deadline under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5), owing to an intervening change in the regulations. In so holding, theContinue reading “An Intervening Change in Law Nearly Always Warrants Modification of Injunction, Holds Ninth Circuit”