The Ninth Circuit holds that under its binding precedent in Filice, California state claim preclusion law—not federal law—governs the preclusive effect of FTCA judgments, and a statute-of-limitations dismissal has no preclusive effect under California law.
Ninth Circuit holds that an automobile manufacturer that was not a party to a consumer’s lease agreement with a dealership cannot enforce the lease’s arbitration or delegation clause, reaffirming Kramer v. Toyota and applying the California Supreme Court’s Ford Motor Warranty Cases
Ninth Circuit vacates a Northern District of California ruling that found fluoride in drinking water at 0.7 mg/L poses unreasonable health risks, holding the judge violated the party presentation principle by commandeering the evidentiary record over both parties’ objections.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for an insurer, holding that unambiguous lending exclusions in a professional liability policy barred coverage for a California bank’s defense and settlement costs arising from Ponzi scheme litigation.
The Ninth Circuit revived willful FCRA and CCRAA claims against Wells Fargo for pulling credit reports after opening unauthorized bank accounts, but upheld dismissal of negligence claims for insufficiently pleaded actual damages.
The Ninth Circuit applies the Supreme Court’s Urias-Orellana decision, holding that the highly deferential substantial evidence standard governs the entirety of the BIA’s asylum conclusions, including whether undisputed facts constitute persecution.
The Ninth Circuit reversed dismissal of a California consumer fraud class action, holding that a licorice product’s “Free of Artificial Colors & Flavors” label can mislead reasonable consumers when the product allegedly contains petroleum-derived DL malic acid as a flavoring.
The Ninth Circuit affirms that Bank of America’s right to compel arbitration under its standard Deposit Agreement is not subject to an exception for judicial reference under California CCP § 638, holding that judicial reference applies only when neither party has invoked arbitration.
The Ninth Circuit holds that when a racially biased juror is discovered and removed before a verdict is accepted, courts must apply the Remmer framework’s heavy presumption of prejudice—and reverses a tax-fraud conviction because the government could not rebut that presumption.
The Ninth Circuit reverses summary judgment for Orange County on a Monell claim and vacates a jury verdict for a jail nurse, finding the trial court’s rigid three-hour time limit prevented the plaintiff from presenting his case after a stroke was misidentified as intoxication during booking.