United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

WAYNER BAUDILIO CANO-CARDONA v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General

The Ninth Circuit denied Wayner Baudilio Cano-Cardona's petitions for review, upholding the Board of Immigration Appeals' refusal to grant asylum and related relief. The court found that gang recruitment attempts were motivated by criminal intent rather than a protected ground, and that the petitioner failed to meet the legal standards for withholding of removal or Convention Against Torture protection.

Gretchen Shanahan v. IXL Learning, Inc.

The Ninth Circuit reversed a district court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration, holding that the burden of proving involuntary acceptance of terms lies with the parents, not the company. However, the court affirmed that the school districts were not authorized agents to bind parents to the arbitration clause.

HOOPES VINEYARD, LLC; SUMMIT LAKE VINEYARDS & WINERY, LLC; COOK'S FLAT ASSOCIATES A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, DBA, Smith-Madrone v. COUNTY OF NAPA

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's application of Younger abstention for most claims while the plaintiffs had ongoing state proceedings, but reversed the dismissal of specific First Amendment retaliation claims. The court remanded the retaliation claims for adjudication because they were sufficiently separable from the state enforcement actions and did not pose a risk of enjoining those proceedings.

Hoopes Vineyard, LLC v. County of Napa

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's application of Younger abstention for most claims but reversed the dismissal of a First Amendment retaliation claim. The court held that while ongoing state proceedings generally preclude federal intervention, the unique nature of the retaliation injury created an exceptional circumstance allowing the federal case to proceed on that specific issue.

LEAH CAMPBELL and EMSURGCARE, EMERGENCY SURGICAL ASSISTANT v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY; INSPERITY, INC and DOES, 1-10

The Ninth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that upheld an insurance company's denial of ERISA benefits, finding the administrator abused its discretion by failing to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the claimant. The court also vacated the lower court's denial of attorneys' fees and statutory penalties, ordering the insurer to produce the full administrative record and pay the claimant's legal costs.

LEAH CAMPBELL and EMSURGCARE, EMERGENCY SURGICAL ASSISTANT v. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY; INSPERITY, INC and DOES, 1-10

The Ninth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had upheld UnitedHealthcare's denial of benefits, holding that the insurer abused its discretion by failing to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the beneficiary. The court remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to award attorneys' fees and impose statutory penalties for the insurer's failure to produce the administrative record.

ANA D. GUARDADO DE RODRIGUEZ v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review, upholding the Board of Immigration Appeals' rejection of an asylum claim based on domestic violence and gang threats. The court found substantial evidence supported the agency's conclusion that the Salvadoran government was able and willing to control the alleged persecutors.

Digna Marina Sorto-Cruz; Erika Xiomara Ramirez-Sorto v. Todd Blanche, Acting Attorney General

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of an asylum and Convention Against Torture denial, ruling that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies regarding the government's ability to control gang persecution. The court also upheld the agency's finding that the petitioner did not meet the high burden required to prove she would likely be tortured if returned to El Salvador.

EVELYN D. CASTRO RIVERA; J. D. L. C v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General

The Ninth Circuit denied a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order rejecting asylum and withholding of removal claims. The court upheld the agency's finding that the petitioners failed to establish a legal nexus between the harm they faced and a protected ground.

G.B., ET AL. V. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL.