The Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Atlantic National Trust v. Mt. Hawley Ins. The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to review a federal district court order remanding a case to state court based on a ground colorably characterized as a “defect” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
In October 2008 a fire caused $10million in damage to buildings owned by Lebanon Hardboard LLC. Atlantic National Trust and Tritalent Funding Group loaned Lebanon money and retained a security interest in the buildings. The secured parties required that Lebanon maintain fire insurance on the property and assign all insurance proceeds to the respective secured parties. At the time of the fire Lebanon had submitted an application for fire insurance to agents of Mt. Hawley Insurance, which had issued an insurance binder but not the actual policy before the fire. The binder failed to assign or mention Atlantic and Tritalent as payees.
In the suit that followed Atlantic filed a complaint against Mt. Hawley, its agents, Lebanon and Tritalent in Oregon state court. Atlantic gave Mt. Hawley and Lebanon courtesy copies of the complaint but didn’t serve them. Mt. Hawley filed a motion to remove to federal court, which Lebanon and Tritalent along with Atlantic later moved to remand back to state court.
In deciding whether the court could exercise appellate review the court used a two part test. The first part asks whether the remand order is based on grounds enumerated in § 1447(c). Next the court, under Supreme Court precedent in Powerex v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224
(2007), determines whether the grounds that form the basis of the remand order are “colorable.” Only if a trial judge “exceeded his statutorily defined power” by remanding “a properly removed case on grounds that he had no authority to consider” can an appellate court exercise jurisdiction over the appeal (Slip Opinion pg. 7, citing Thermtron Prods. Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336, 351 (1976)). The court found the district court based its order on a violation of the unanimity rule and this ground was both enumerated under § 1447(c) and colorable (i.e. wasn’t based on as docket congestion or abstention) (pg. 13,14).
The court’s opinion doesn’t create any new law. In fact it goes out of its way in the final pargarphs to make clear that some of Mt. Hawley’s arguments present unsettled law that the court doesn’t need to reach to decide whether it had jurisdiction (pg. 16). The opinion does serve as a great model for the framework to analyze a remand order under § 1447(c).
Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts
Nader and Ballot Access in Hawaii
The Ninth Circuit today affirmed a Hawaii district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Elections Commissioner who denied Independent Candidates for President Ralph Nader and Michael Peroutka access to Hawaii’s ballot for the 2004 presidential election. Nader and Peroutka appealed the ruling arguing that Hawaii’s ballot access laws violated the Equal Protection Clause and/or the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Hawaiian framework requires either a certain number of signatures or filing a petition 170 days before a primary to form a “qualified party” in order to be on the ballot.
The court quickly rejected the appeal. Under its first amendment analysis the court found that “[t]he Constitution (U.S. Const. Art. I, § 4, cl. 1) provides that States may prescribe‘[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,’” and the Supreme Court has recognized that States retain the “power to regulate their own elections.” Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433 (1992) (slip opinion pg. 5). The court found that under this authority states can apply some restrictions to ballot access but will only apply strict scrutiny where the “magnitude of the asserted injury” warranted such review. It held that strict scrutiny did not apply to the plaintiff’s because the burden placed was de minimis.
The court also summarily dismissed the equal protection argument, calling it “unpersuasive” under existing authority. The opinion doesn’t make much new law. It largely relies on Supreme Court authority and its own factual analysis in determining how onerous the Hawaiian framework is. Third party candidates aren’t barred from the ballot, but in the future are reminded to follow the framework and not rely on the courts.
The court quickly rejected the appeal. Under its first amendment analysis the court found that “[t]he Constitution (U.S. Const. Art. I, § 4, cl. 1) provides that States may prescribe‘[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,’” and the Supreme Court has recognized that States retain the “power to regulate their own elections.” Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433 (1992) (slip opinion pg. 5). The court found that under this authority states can apply some restrictions to ballot access but will only apply strict scrutiny where the “magnitude of the asserted injury” warranted such review. It held that strict scrutiny did not apply to the plaintiff’s because the burden placed was de minimis.
The court also summarily dismissed the equal protection argument, calling it “unpersuasive” under existing authority. The opinion doesn’t make much new law. It largely relies on Supreme Court authority and its own factual analysis in determining how onerous the Hawaiian framework is. Third party candidates aren’t barred from the ballot, but in the future are reminded to follow the framework and not rely on the courts.
New Rights under §1983, New Worries for CA
A New Right
Yesterday the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in CA State Foster Parent v. Wagner. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the state’s motion that the Children Welfare Act (42 U.S.C. § 670 et seq.) did not create a federal cause of action under §1983. For the first time the Ninth Circuit held that the CWA “grants foster care providers a federal statutory right to payments that cover certain enumerated costs, a right redressable under § 1983[.]” (Slip Opinion at pg. 6).
A right the court the court states (and carefully outlines) “flows from” controlling Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority governing “when federal statutes create federal rights…” (pg.6) (explaining later in the opinion the question is one of Congressional intent and under Supreme Court authority “a federal statute can create an enforceable right under § 1983 when it explicitly confers a specific monetary entitlement on an identified beneficiary.” See Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 110 S. Ct. 2510, 110 L. Ed. 2d 455 (1990) (recognizing health care providers’ right to reasonable reimbursement rates under the Medicaid Act); Wright v. Roanoke Redev. & Hous. Auth., 479 U.S. 418, 107 S. Ct. 766, 93 L. Ed. 2d 781 (1987) (recognizing public housing tenants’ right to reimbursement for utilities charges in excess of rental costs permitted by the Public Housing Act); see also Gonzaga, 536 U.S. at 280 (reaffirming Wilder and Wright).
A New Worry
The suit was brought by three associations representing individual foster parents in CA. Under the CWA Congress provided money to state governments to pay for children’s foster care and adoption assistance programs. The statute “spells out the specific foster care provider expenses that states’ payments are supposed to cover.” (pg. 5) see also 42U.S.C. §§ 672(a) and 675(4)(A). The last adjustment to these costs was made by California in 1990. The suit was the result of those parents becoming concerned that the state’s payments were falling short of the costs enumerated in the CWA.
The suit follows Allenby where the court assumed, but never decided, there was a federal right created by the CWA. See California Alliance of Child and Family Services v. Allenby, 589 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Allenby II”). The court also issue its opinion despite the parties in Wagner have resolved the merits through mediation. The decision presented not only an unusual procedural posture, but what was likely becoming an increasing question in light of the state’s budget problem. The decision places pressure on a financially strapped state to increase payments to comply with the CWA. How the state will manage this new costs will be interesting to watch unfold.
Yesterday the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in CA State Foster Parent v. Wagner. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the state’s motion that the Children Welfare Act (42 U.S.C. § 670 et seq.) did not create a federal cause of action under §1983. For the first time the Ninth Circuit held that the CWA “grants foster care providers a federal statutory right to payments that cover certain enumerated costs, a right redressable under § 1983[.]” (Slip Opinion at pg. 6).
A right the court the court states (and carefully outlines) “flows from” controlling Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority governing “when federal statutes create federal rights…” (pg.6) (explaining later in the opinion the question is one of Congressional intent and under Supreme Court authority “a federal statute can create an enforceable right under § 1983 when it explicitly confers a specific monetary entitlement on an identified beneficiary.” See Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 110 S. Ct. 2510, 110 L. Ed. 2d 455 (1990) (recognizing health care providers’ right to reasonable reimbursement rates under the Medicaid Act); Wright v. Roanoke Redev. & Hous. Auth., 479 U.S. 418, 107 S. Ct. 766, 93 L. Ed. 2d 781 (1987) (recognizing public housing tenants’ right to reimbursement for utilities charges in excess of rental costs permitted by the Public Housing Act); see also Gonzaga, 536 U.S. at 280 (reaffirming Wilder and Wright).
A New Worry
The suit was brought by three associations representing individual foster parents in CA. Under the CWA Congress provided money to state governments to pay for children’s foster care and adoption assistance programs. The statute “spells out the specific foster care provider expenses that states’ payments are supposed to cover.” (pg. 5) see also 42U.S.C. §§ 672(a) and 675(4)(A). The last adjustment to these costs was made by California in 1990. The suit was the result of those parents becoming concerned that the state’s payments were falling short of the costs enumerated in the CWA.
The suit follows Allenby where the court assumed, but never decided, there was a federal right created by the CWA. See California Alliance of Child and Family Services v. Allenby, 589 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Allenby II”). The court also issue its opinion despite the parties in Wagner have resolved the merits through mediation. The decision presented not only an unusual procedural posture, but what was likely becoming an increasing question in light of the state’s budget problem. The decision places pressure on a financially strapped state to increase payments to comply with the CWA. How the state will manage this new costs will be interesting to watch unfold.
Summary Judgment and the Americans with Disabilities Act
The Ninth Circuit issued an opinion today in EEOC v. UPS (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/08/27/08-56874.pdf).
The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of UPS. Notably the court held that summary judgment is not appropriate where "there is a disputed issue of fact" concerning the effectiveness of modifications made by the employer" where the "employer was aware or should have been aware that" the modifications made were not effective(pg. 17).
Under the ADA employers must make "reasonable accommodations" to qualified individuals unless the employer can show that such accommodations would impose an undue hardship. The court carefully outlined what makes a reasonable accommodation:
EEOC regulations define the term reasonable accommodation:
The court's summary judgment analysis circumscribes a new limit in the circuit on the application of summary judgment in ADA cases. A limit that may creep into other areas of employment discrimination.
The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of UPS. Notably the court held that summary judgment is not appropriate where "there is a disputed issue of fact" concerning the effectiveness of modifications made by the employer" where the "employer was aware or should have been aware that" the modifications made were not effective(pg. 17).
Under the ADA employers must make "reasonable accommodations" to qualified individuals unless the employer can show that such accommodations would impose an undue hardship. The court carefully outlined what makes a reasonable accommodation:
EEOC regulations define the term reasonable accommodation:
“[m]odifications or adjustments that enable a covered entity’s employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed
by its other similarly situated employees without disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(iii).
“An ineffective ‘modification’or ‘adjustment’ will not accommodate a disabled individual’s limitations.” Barnett, 535 U.S. at 400. Ineffective modifications
therefore are not accommodations. Cf. Humphrey v. Mem’l Hosps. Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128, 1137 (9th Cir. 2001)(“An appropriate reasonable accommodation must be effective,
in enabling the employee to perform the duties of the position.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
“The reasonablenessof an accommodation is ordinarily a question of
fact.” Lujan v. Pac. Mar. Ass’n, 165 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir.
1999)."
The court's summary judgment analysis circumscribes a new limit in the circuit on the application of summary judgment in ADA cases. A limit that may creep into other areas of employment discrimination.
Out of Touch - U.S. v. Pineda-Moreno
While enjoying breakfast this morning and skimming the news headlines I came across a story on CNN. The headline read "Police can secretly tack GPS on your car" (http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/27/oregon.gps.surveillance/index.html?hpt=T1). The story piqued my interest and lead me to read the Ninth Circuit's latest denial of Pineda-Moreno's appeal of the warrantless entry on his drive way to install and later use a GPS tracking device on his car. After a decision by a three judge panel the full court wouldn't reconsider the appeal and affirmed the district court.
Out of Touch with Society
The dissent rips into the panel's decision. It begins by analyzing why the court refused to recognize the curtilage (a "quaint word" that describes in modern law mean "those portions of a homeowner’s property so closely associated with
the home as to be considered part of it") as a place where Pineda-Moreno, and any person really, enjoyed a reasonable expectation of privacy. Supreme Court precedent, neatly laid out in the dissent, supports a reasonable expectation of privacy in the curtilage.
Yet the majority, after the government conceded the driveway was curtilage, reasons that it isn't protected because the "driveway was open to the public in that strangers wishing to reach the door of his trailer to deliver the newspaper or to visit someone would have to go through the driveway to get to the house.” Pineda-Moreno,591 F.3d 1212, 1215. Ignoring the protection provided when the mail is delivered or the electric meter read, the court finds that because the police can do what an "uninvited child" can do, crawl under a fence or under a car, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
As the dissent notes the majority is out of touch with the "vast majority" of citizens in the Circuit (and truly across the nation) who:
"...will see their privacy materially diminished by the panel’s ruling.
Open driveways, unenclosed porches, basement doors left
unlocked, back doors left ajar, yard gates left unlatched,
garage doors that don’t quite close, ladders propped up under
an open window will all be considered invitations for police
to sneak in on the theory that a neighborhood child might, in
which case, the homeowner “would have no grounds to complain.”
The court more than affirming a bad district court decision, affirmed that many of the judges live in a bubble.
Out of Touch with Technology
More than leaving unenclosed areas unprotected the Ninth Circuit, like many courts, doesn't appear to understand technology. The majority compares the GPS used in Pineda-Moreno, to a beeper used in another case in 1983!(United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)). In Knotts the police attached a beeper, a radio transmitter that emitted only periodic signals, and which merely indicated when police were getting closer. GPS technology by contrast provides a pinpoint location at any time and virtually all the time.
The majority doesn't reason that there is a diminished expectation of privacy given advances in technology (a colorable argument in an age of Twitter, Smartphones, and Facebook). It closes its eyes to the leaps made in technology. Instead, it reasons the "government can obtain this information without implicating the Fourth Amendment" because "movements through public spaces" may be "observed by an actual or hypothetical observer" destroying any expectation of privacy. The dissent quickly highlights the flaw in this reasoning:
"You can preserve your anonymity from prying eyes, even in public, by traveling at night, through heavy traffic, in crowds, by using a circuitous route, disguising your appearance, passing in and out of buildings and being careful not to be followed. But there’s no hiding from the all-seeing network of GPS satellites that hover overhead, which never sleep, never blink, never get confused and never lose attention."
The court doesn't understand the technology and doesn't seem interested in taking time to ask questions. Instead it hobbles together an opinion based on flawed reasoning and out of date assumptions. The D.C. Circuit took a different approach, leading no doubt to a decision ultimately by the U.S. Supreme Court. It's unlikely the reasoning and the poor attention to precedent will survive review by the high court.
Out of Touch with Society
The dissent rips into the panel's decision. It begins by analyzing why the court refused to recognize the curtilage (a "quaint word" that describes in modern law mean "those portions of a homeowner’s property so closely associated with
the home as to be considered part of it") as a place where Pineda-Moreno, and any person really, enjoyed a reasonable expectation of privacy. Supreme Court precedent, neatly laid out in the dissent, supports a reasonable expectation of privacy in the curtilage.
Yet the majority, after the government conceded the driveway was curtilage, reasons that it isn't protected because the "driveway was open to the public in that strangers wishing to reach the door of his trailer to deliver the newspaper or to visit someone would have to go through the driveway to get to the house.” Pineda-Moreno,591 F.3d 1212, 1215. Ignoring the protection provided when the mail is delivered or the electric meter read, the court finds that because the police can do what an "uninvited child" can do, crawl under a fence or under a car, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
As the dissent notes the majority is out of touch with the "vast majority" of citizens in the Circuit (and truly across the nation) who:
"...will see their privacy materially diminished by the panel’s ruling.
Open driveways, unenclosed porches, basement doors left
unlocked, back doors left ajar, yard gates left unlatched,
garage doors that don’t quite close, ladders propped up under
an open window will all be considered invitations for police
to sneak in on the theory that a neighborhood child might, in
which case, the homeowner “would have no grounds to complain.”
The court more than affirming a bad district court decision, affirmed that many of the judges live in a bubble.
Out of Touch with Technology
More than leaving unenclosed areas unprotected the Ninth Circuit, like many courts, doesn't appear to understand technology. The majority compares the GPS used in Pineda-Moreno, to a beeper used in another case in 1983!(United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983)). In Knotts the police attached a beeper, a radio transmitter that emitted only periodic signals, and which merely indicated when police were getting closer. GPS technology by contrast provides a pinpoint location at any time and virtually all the time.
The majority doesn't reason that there is a diminished expectation of privacy given advances in technology (a colorable argument in an age of Twitter, Smartphones, and Facebook). It closes its eyes to the leaps made in technology. Instead, it reasons the "government can obtain this information without implicating the Fourth Amendment" because "movements through public spaces" may be "observed by an actual or hypothetical observer" destroying any expectation of privacy. The dissent quickly highlights the flaw in this reasoning:
"You can preserve your anonymity from prying eyes, even in public, by traveling at night, through heavy traffic, in crowds, by using a circuitous route, disguising your appearance, passing in and out of buildings and being careful not to be followed. But there’s no hiding from the all-seeing network of GPS satellites that hover overhead, which never sleep, never blink, never get confused and never lose attention."
The court doesn't understand the technology and doesn't seem interested in taking time to ask questions. Instead it hobbles together an opinion based on flawed reasoning and out of date assumptions. The D.C. Circuit took a different approach, leading no doubt to a decision ultimately by the U.S. Supreme Court. It's unlikely the reasoning and the poor attention to precedent will survive review by the high court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)