September 7 Ninth Circuit decisions
On September 7, 2007, the Ninth Circuit issued four published decisions and one published order:
In Solidus Networks v Excel Innovations, the Ninth Circuit held that when a bankruptcy debtor seeks to enjoin a proceeding in which the debtor is not a party, the bankruptcy court must weigh the likelihood of succ4ess forhte debtor’s reorganization against the hardship to the parties, as well as any public interest. The matter here was remanded for consideration under this test.
In Comedy Club, Inc. v Improv West, the Ninth Circuit held that an arbitrator exceeded the scope of his authority by enjoining non party-affiliates. The arbitrator’s decision also violated California law (CBPI 16600) by prohibiting CCI from opening comedy clubs throughout the U.S., where it should only have prohibited CCI from opening clubs in counties where it already operated.
In Inouye v Kemna, the Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of qualified immunity where a parolee stated a claim that he had been forced to participate in a narcotics addiction program containing religious content, despite protesting such content. The Court held that the right to refrain from participation in religious-based programs as a condition of parole was clearly established at the time the parole officer recommended revocation of Inouye’s parole because of his refusal to participate in AA/NA. The Court noted that in additional to various uniform decisions on the issue among the circuits, Inouye’s pending lawsuit against the prison for having forced him to participate in such programs, plus his letter to the parole board attaching relevant case law, was enough to put he parole officer on notice.
In Stoner v Santa Clara, the Court held that California school districts are state agencies, and therefore, are not “persons” subject to the liability for making false claims to the U.S. government under 32 U.S.C. § 3279. State officials may be held liable under the statute in their personal capacities. Here, however, Stoner brought the qui tam action as a relator on behalf of the U.S. government, but, while an attorney, is not admitted to practice in California. Stoner did not identify any authority to allow him to proceed pro se on behalf of the government.
In Singh v Gonzales, the Court granted Singh’s motion for costs and fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The Court noted that if the government continued to make rejected arguments before the Court, without noting that such argument had been rejected (thereby preserving them for en banc or Supreme Court review), the Court would consider it sanctionable conduct.
