Valdemar Aguirre Cordova

The case concerned the termination of the plaintiff's SSI disability benefits by the Secretary, which the court had previously reversed on summary judgment because the plaintiff qualified as a 'grandfatheree' under 42 U.S.C. § 1382c(a)(3)(E) and the Secretary had not shown material medical improvement or prior error as required by Finnegan v. Matthews. Plaintiff then moved for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) and (b). The court held that fees are available even for pro bono representation because Congress intended awards based on market rates without regard to the actual fee arrangement, and that the Secretary's position was not substantially justified (and was taken in bad faith) due to conscious disregard of controlling Ninth Circuit precedent. It therefore granted fees under both subsections and awarded $2,925 while denying expenses.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

The case Swift Transportation, Inc. v. John involved a prior district court decision and injunction at 546 F.Supp. 1185. After the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mandate remanding the matter on grounds that the appeal had become moot, the district court acted on that directive. It therefore vacated its earlier ruling and dissolved the injunction. The reasoning rests solely on following the appellate mandate due to mootness of the appeal.

procedure

The EEOC sued Borden's, Inc. under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act after the company closed its Phoenix dairy and denied severance pay to fourteen employees who were at least fifty-five years old and eligible for retirement under the terms of renewed collective bargaining agreements. The agreements' severance formula excluded those eligible for normal or early retirement pensions, and no employees over fifty-five received severance pay. The court granted summary judgment to the EEOC on a disparate impact theory, finding that the facially neutral retirement-eligibility criterion fell more harshly on older workers, while rejecting a discriminatory treatment claim and a bona fide employee benefit plan defense. It awarded the affected employees the severance amounts plus prejudgment interest but denied injunctive relief because the dairy operation had permanently closed.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case concerns whether the Navajo Tribal Court has civil jurisdiction over non-Indian defendants Swift Transportation and its employee in a personal injury and property damage suit arising from a 1980 car accident on a U.S. highway within the Navajo Reservation. The non-Indian plaintiffs filed a federal action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to halt the tribal court proceedings, after which the tribal defendants moved to dismiss on jurisdictional and sovereign immunity grounds. The court denied the motions to dismiss and issued a preliminary injunction, holding that the tribe lacks inherent sovereignty to assert civil jurisdiction over non-members for such incidents. The ruling was based on federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, limits on tribal powers under precedents such as Montana v. United States, and the absence of any congressional delegation of authority.

federal powerproceduretorts & liability

This case involved private car companies challenging Arizona's 1981 property tax assessments on their rail cars, claiming they violated the federal 4R Act by discriminating against rail transportation property compared to other commercial and industrial property. The court decided that the assessments did not violate the Act, denying relief to the plaintiffs and ordering payment of the taxes plus interest. The reasoning was that Arizona's statutory scheme, using a weighted mean of assessment ratios from other property classes, resulted in ratios for rail property that did not exceed the others by at least 5%, and this method was appropriate for a de jure discrimination claim under the Act.

taxesbusiness & regulatoryfederal power

The case involved a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Charlie Lee Evans after his state convictions for rape and kidnapping were affirmed on appeal. Evans claimed he was denied due process because the trial court failed to hold a hearing on his competency to waive counsel despite evidence raising doubts and because the record did not show a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. The court granted the petition, concluding that substantial evidence of potential incompetence required a sua sponte competency hearing under Ninth Circuit standards adapted from cases like Sieling v. Eyman and that the record lacked sufficient information showing Evans understood the nature of the charges, possible penalties, and risks of self-representation as required by precedents like Johnson v. Zerbst.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Mark Harris, a tenured professor hired by Arizona State University with a promise of automatic tenure, who was later offered only a terminal contract after department conflicts including his opposition to hiring a candidate. Harris sued the Arizona Board of Regents and university officials alleging breach of contract, interference with contract, emotional distress, and civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. The court granted the Board's motion to dismiss, finding it was not subject to suit under § 1983 or was protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity, while issuing a preliminary injunction preserving Harris's position against the remaining individual defendants based on his likelihood of success on contract and due process claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfederal power

In Jones v. Berry, petitioners who were targets of an IRS undercover investigation into potential tax fraud at Acme Meat Company filed a pre-indictment petition under Rule 41(e) seeking the return and suppression of books, records, and documents seized by agents posing as business buyers. The court granted the petition in full, ordering the IRS to return all seized materials and copies, and permanently enjoining the government from using any of the evidence in criminal proceedings against the petitioners for the relevant tax years. The core reasoning was that the agents' entry and examination of records involved unlawful searches and seizures, that any consent obtained was tainted by the prior misconduct or had been revoked, and that the evidence was therefore inadmissible.

criminal lawtaxes

This case arose after UNC Resources' uranium mill tailings pond on fee land off the Navajo reservation failed in 1979, releasing radioactive waste that flowed into the Puerco River and onto the reservation, prompting Navajo plaintiffs to file tort suits seeking damages in Navajo Tribal Court. UNC brought this federal action seeking to enjoin the Tribal Court proceedings, obtain a declaration of non-liability, and consolidate claims. The court held it had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 due to substantial issues involving treaties, statutes, and limits on tribal sovereignty over non-Indians for off-reservation conduct. It issued a preliminary injunction barring pursuit of claims in Tribal Court but dismissed UNC's requests for a declaratory judgment of non-liability and a bill of peace.

federal powerenvironmenttorts & liability

The case involved a female state employee, Nathalie Norris, suing the Arizona Governing Committee over its Deferred Compensation Plan, which allowed participants to choose annuity options calculated using sex-segregated actuarial tables; as a result, women received smaller monthly payments than men with equal contributions because the tables assumed longer female life expectancy. Norris sought class certification and an injunction against the use of these tables, claiming a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court certified the case as a class action on behalf of female plan participants and granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs. It held that the plan's administration discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII by providing unequal compensation terms to men and women. The core reasoning was that employers must treat male and female employees equally regarding compensation and privileges of employment, and sex-based actuarial tables impermissibly resulted in lower benefits for women.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved multiple consolidated actions by Indian tribes and others seeking a declaration of water rights in various Arizona river systems. The central issue was whether the federal district court should dismiss the cases or remand them to state court under the McCarran Amendment, which consents to joining the United States in state proceedings for the adjudication of water rights. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States, the court held that considerations of wise judicial administration and the federal policy against piecemeal adjudication of interdependent water rights required deference to comprehensive state court proceedings under Arizona's statutory scheme. Factors supporting this outcome included the early stage of the federal litigation and the large number of parties involved in the state actions. The court concluded there was no practical distinction between suits filed by the United States and those filed by the tribes for purposes of this jurisdictional analysis.

propertyfederal powerprocedure