Panel: Nguyen Bumatay (concurring in all but footnote 4 of the opinion and concurring in the judgment) District Judge Seeborg (author) The panel dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, an appeal from the district court’s orders (a) denying, on summary judgment, a motion for qualified immunity; and (b) denying a motion to reconsider the summary judgment order.
Panel: Berzon Collins (author) VanDyke The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a complaint alleging contractual and tortious breaches of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the mediation process.
Panel: Wardlaw (author) W. Fletcher Federal Circuit Judge Linn The panel dismissed for lack of jurisdiction an appeal from the district court’s order denying a government motion to dismiss a False Claims Act case.
Panel: Wardlaw Nguyen Owens
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020), the panel remanded these cases to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion, which held that the Department of Homeland Security’s rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
Panel: W. Fletcher (author) Lee (dissenting) District Judge Settle The panel reversed the district court’s order denying Environmental Protection Information Center’s request for a preliminary injunction, challenging the United States Forest Service’s approval of the Ranch Fire Roadside Hazard Tree Project in Northern California.
Panel: Wallace (author) R. Nelson District Judge Gwin The panel dismissed a prisoner civil rights appeal and cross-appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings.
Panel: Sixth Circuit Judge Boggs Ikuta (author) Christen (concurring in part, dissenting in part) The panel affirmed the district court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion for class certification in an action challenging the written rest-break policy of plaintiff’s former employer, O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC.
Panel: Nguyen Miller (author) District Judge Vitaliano The panel affirmed the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s ruling that a creditor’s post-discharge collection efforts on a vehicle lease did not violate the discharge injunction in a Chapter 7 case.
Panel: Wallace R. Nelson District Judge Gwin (author) The panel reversed the district court’s ruling that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation violated a settlement agreement, vacated the district court’s remedial orders, and remanded for further proceedings in a prison conditions civil rights class action.
Panel: Paez Collins (author) Ct. of Int’l Trade Judge Choe-Groves The panel affirmed in part the district court’s judgment in a case in which the defendant was convicted of possession of a machinegun (18 U.S.C. § 922(o)) and possession of an unregistered machinegun (26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)); and remanded with instructions to vacate one of the two convictions.
Panel: Bybee (author) Collins District Judge Moskowitz Affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the panel held that Haim Attias was ineligible for adjustment of status to lawful-permanent-resident status because he failed to establish that his lapse in lawful immigration status was “through no fault of his own or for technical reasons.”
Panel: Murguia (author) Christen District Judge Stein The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of a sexual harassment claim under California Civil Code section 51.9 brought by actor Ashley Judd against producer Harvey Weinstein.
The panel reversed in part and vacated in part the district court’s order of dismissal and remanded in an action alleging that Arizona State University violated Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a), by discriminating against plaintiff on the basis of sex during the course of a sexual misconduct disciplinary case against him.
Panel: M. Smith (author) Owens (concurring) Bress Denying Miguel Orellana’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the panel held that 1) a conviction for criminal stalking, in violation of California Penal Code § 646.9(a), is categorically a crime involving moral turpitude; and 2) the BIA reasonably concluded that Orellana’s two § 646.9(a) counts of conviction did not arise out of single scheme of criminal misconduct, and therefore, made him removable.
Panel: Sixth Circuit Judge Boggs (author) Bea Hurwitz The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s dismissal of a putative class action raising warranty claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and state law arising out of crashes or injuries caused by the alleged “rollaway effect” of certain Honda Civic vehicles.
Panel: Tenth Circuit Judge Murphy Paez (author) Rawlinson (dissenting) The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of claims that defendants’ marketing of so-called prescription pet food violated California’s consumer protection laws and remanded for further proceedings.
Panel: Bybee (author) VanDyke District Judge Chhabria (concurring) The panel reversed the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress inculpatory statements in a case in which the defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to aiming a laser at an aircraft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 39A.
Panel: Wardlaw W. Fletcher (author) Federal Circuit Judge Linn In two appeals arising from a federal grand jury investigation into the acquisition of one company by another, the panel (1) dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction the Doe Company’s appeal seeking review of the district court’s order enforcing Doe Company partner Pat Roe’s compliance with a grand jury subpoena, and (2) affirmed the district court’s orders enforcing the Doe Company’s compliance with a grand jury subpoena and holding the Doe Company in contempt for failure to produce the subpoenaed documents in its possession.
Panel: Tenth Circuit Judge Murphy Paez (author) Rawlinson (dissenting) The panel reversed the district court’s denial of Michael Bynoe’s motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) to reopen proceedings on his habeas corpus petition seeking to invalidate his plea of guilty but mentally ill to lewdness with a child under the age of fourteen, and remanded for further proceedings.