August 13, 2007 Ninth Circuit Opinions
On Monday, August 13, the Ninth Circuit issues five new published opinions.
In Emmert Industrial Corp v. Artisan Assocs., the Ninth Circuit held that the time for filing a claim for transportation charges set forth in 49 U.S.C. § 14705 of the ICCTA apply even where the carrier has not filed a tariff. The Court affirmed the summary judgment granted to Artisan for the claims for transportation services provided. However, the Court also held a contract underlying a third claim to be ambiguous, and reversed and remanded the summary judgment granted as to Emmert’s breach of contract claim.
In Womack v. Del Papa, a habeas appeal arising out of Nevada, the Ninth Circuit held Womack did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney advised him a guilty plea was a his “best chance” of receiving a minimum sentence. Although Womack did not receive the minimum sentence, nothing in the record suggests the attorney’s advice was erroneous, or that Womack did know the possible sentences he could receive.
In Im v. Gonzales, the Ninth Circuit found that the act of unlocking a cell door so that prisoners could be taken to interrogation rooms was not an act integral to persecution. Accordingly, Im, who was once employed at a prison to perform such tasks, was not ineligible for asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 208 13.
In AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, the Ninth Circuit held that abstention was not required, reversing the dismissal of a diversity case by the district court. The Court disapproved of the District Court’s balancing of Younger factors, rather than determining whether each factor is satisfied. The Court also clarified that all four of the Younger factors must be satisfied before abstention may occur: 1) a state initiated proceeding is ongoing; 2) that proceeding implicates an important state interest with implications beyond the case itself; 3) the federal litigant is not barred from litigating federal constitutional questions in that proceeding; and 4) the federal action would no enjoin the state proceeding. Diversity action may proceed. Here, the ongoing state proceeding did not concern important state issues; additionally, the federal action would not require the state action to be enjoined. The Court suggested that AmerisourceBergen’s switch to federal court might have been motivation but its continuing lack of success in the state court, and expressed regret that the District court’s obligation to exercise jurisdiction it has had required the expense to which the parties had been put, as well as for the use of resources in two overburdened court systems, and
In Gulla v. Gonzales, the Ninth Circuit held the Immigration Judge abused his discretion in denying asylum, where the denial was because 1) Gulla had traveled through 3 countries before arriving at the US; 2) Gulla was in good health and not of tender age when he arrived, and 3) Gulla used forged passports to reach the U.S border. The IJ failed to balance favorable and negative factors, and gave reasons for the decision the Court described as “not rational.”
