William Cameron Canby jr

The case concerned a family-owned cosmetics company, Mindys Cosmetics, suing attorney Kia Kamran and other family members over his 2007 registration of two company trademarks in the name of Sonya Dakar, with claims including legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, and conversion. Kamran moved to strike the claims against him under California's anti-SLAPP statute, contending they arose from protected conduct, but the district court denied the motion. On interlocutory appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial, ruling that Mindys had shown a reasonable probability of prevailing on its claims based on evidence that Kamran acted without advising the company and registered the marks on instructions from other family members.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

Hernan Ismael Delgado, a native of El Salvador who overstayed a visitor visa, petitioned for review after the Board of Immigration Appeals denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief and ordered him removed, based on three prior DUI convictions deemed particularly serious crimes plus a failure to show likely future torture. The court granted the petition in part and denied it in part, holding that the Attorney General may determine by case-by-case adjudication that a non-aggravated-felony offense is particularly serious for both withholding and asylum purposes. It ruled that judicial review of the particularly serious crime finding is unavailable for withholding claims but available for asylum claims, and concluded that Delgado's DUIs did not meet the particularly serious standard, remanding the asylum application. The court also held that substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT deferral. The decision rested on statutory interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act provisions governing eligibility for relief.

immigrationcriminal law

This case involved the United States condemning easements on approximately 14 acres of private land in Fresno County, California, on behalf of the Western Area Power Administration to construct a high-voltage transmission line known as the Path 15 Upgrade. Landowners challenged the action, contending that it lacked sufficient congressional authorization, did not qualify as a public use, and violated California siting and other state laws. The district court dismissed the challenges and entered summary judgment for the government, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court reasoned that multiple federal statutes authorized the condemnation, the project served a public purpose, and the Supremacy Clause preempted state-law compliance requirements because Congress had not expressly directed otherwise.

federal powerproperty

Hernan Ismael Delgado, a native of El Salvador who overstayed a visitor visa, petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision ordering his removal and denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The BIA determined that Delgado's three prior DUI convictions constituted particularly serious crimes barring him from asylum and withholding relief, and that he had not shown a likelihood of torture if returned to El Salvador. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the petition in part for lack of jurisdiction to review the merits of the particularly serious crime determinations and denied it in part on the remaining claims. The court deferred to the BIA's interpretation that the relevant statutes permit the Attorney General to designate a non-aggravated felony as particularly serious through case-by-case adjudication rather than regulation, and it found substantial evidence supported the denial of CAT deferral.

immigrationcriminal law

Steve Houston, a Nevada state prisoner convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and related firearm offenses, appealed the denial of his federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing that the state trial court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by denying a motion to continue the trial for retained counsel and by failing to address a conflict of interest in his public defender's prior representation of the prosecution's key witness. The Ninth Circuit held that the Nevada Supreme Court's rejection of the continuance claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as the trial judge acted within discretion by weighing timing, witness impact, and diligence just days before trial. The court vacated and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether the conflict adversely affected counsel's performance, citing the need for further factfinding on the attorney's knowledge and actions regarding the witness's prior related case.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case involved the United States condemning transmission easements on 14.02 acres of land in California for the Western Area Power Administration to build a high-voltage line as part of the Path 15 Upgrade project aimed at easing electric power constraints. Landowners challenged the condemnation, claiming it lacked congressional authorization, was not for a public use under the Takings Clause, and violated California law. The district court struck the challenges, and after the parties stipulated to compensation of $7,374.32, it entered summary judgment for the government. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that WAPA possessed statutory authority from multiple federal enactments including the Department of Energy Organization Act, the project qualified as a public use, and federal law controlled over any conflicting state requirements.

federal powerpropertyprocedure

This case involved the United States condemning an easement across private land in California for constructing a high-voltage power transmission line. The landowner sought substantial compensation, claiming the power lines diminished the value of the remaining property due to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), among other factors. The district court excluded expert testimony on specific EMF levels and related developer studies as unfairly prejudicial, allowing only testimony on public perceptions of EMFs. The Ninth Circuit affirmed this exclusion, holding that the trial judge acted within his discretion under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 because the testimony could mislead the jury regarding health risks without sufficient probative value linking EMF measurements to market effects.

propertyfederal powerprocedure

In Lazaro v. Mukasey, a native of the Philippines petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order upholding his removal based on a 1997 California grand theft conviction, which was treated as an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Ninth Circuit denied the petition in part, rejecting the claim that the original Notice to Appear was defective and deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction. It granted the petition in part and remanded, however, because the BIA had misdescribed how the immigration judge amended the NTA by adding specific aggravated felony subsections, and the BIA had not yet addressed Lazaro's argument that the judge lacked authority to make that amendment sua sponte under the relevant regulations. The court reviewed questions of law de novo and concluded that remand was appropriate so the agency could decide the issue in the first instance.

immigrationprocedure

The case involved Sayed Mohamad Alali-Amin, an Iranian native and citizen, who petitioned for review after the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the denial of his 2005 motion to reopen removal proceedings as untimely. Alali-Amin had been ordered deported in 2000 following criminal convictions, but his removal was deferred under the Convention Against Torture; he later sought reopening to adjust status based on marriage to a U.S. citizen. The immigration judge and BIA applied the 90-day filing deadline under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) from the date the 2000 order became final. The court denied the petition, concluding that the order qualified as a final order of deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(47) upon expiration of the appeal period, regardless of the CAT deferral, rendering the motion filed nearly six years later untimely.

immigration

The case involved four farm workers who sued their employer under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act after being laid off during a seasonal winter slowdown in work at a commercial farm. The district court granted summary judgment to the employer on all claims, but the Ninth Circuit reviewed the matter under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The court held that the employer met its burden by pointing to a legitimate reduction in available work due to increased use of plastic mulching, along with performance or other factors for some workers, and that three plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of pretext. For the fourth plaintiff, however, evidence created a genuine factual dispute as to whether the employer's stated reasons were pretextual, requiring a trial on that single claim.

labor & employmentcivil rights