Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 2:14-cv-02057-

The ninth-circuit vacated the district court’s permanent injunction in favor of Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc., and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of VIP Products, LLC, on the claim of trademark dilution by tarnishment under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act. The panel held that to establish dilution by tarnishment, a plaintiff must prove that its mark is famous, the allegedly diluting mark is similar, and the junior mark creates a mental association likely to damage the famous mark’s reputation. The court concluded that Jack Daniel’s failed to meet this burden because it proved fame only for the “Jack Daniel’s” mark and its trade dress, not for “Old No. 7.” Furthermore, neither the “Bad Spaniels” mark nor the toy’s trade dress was facially tarnishing, and the plaintiff’s expert testimony regarding reputational harm was deemed speculative conjecture that ignored the product’s obvious parodic nature. Consequently, Jack Daniel’s did not demonstrate a likelihood of dilution by tarnishment.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 3:07-cv-05634-CRB

The ninth-circuit dismissed in part and affirmed in part the district court’s orders overruling objections to the administration of a secondary distribution of settlement funds from the Transpacific Passenger Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation. The court dismissed the appeal of David Gould for lack of Article III standing, applying the injury-in-fact requirement under *Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife*, because Gould failed to provide evidence that his pro rata share was actually reduced by the audits or claim corrections, and his request for prompt payment was moot as the distribution was complete. The court affirmed the denial of Jeanette Stevens’ (trading as Elm Co.) objection, applying an abuse of discretion standard to review the district court’s approval of the distribution plan. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Rust Consulting to audit and verify claim validity to ensure funds reached only qualified claimants, noting that Elm Co. was denied eligibility because it failed to respond to verification requests for an undocumented claim, and other arguments were forfeited for failure to develop them below. The practical consequence is that the secondary distribution plan remains in effect as approved by the district court.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 2:13-cr-00186-GMN-VCF-1

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s order denying Abdul Howard’s third motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Applying an abuse of discretion standard, the court held that the district court did not err in rejecting Howard’s arguments, which had been previously denied, and in finding no change in circumstances warranting relief. The court reasoned that neither United States v. Edling nor other cited changes in sentencing law affected Howard’s mandatory life sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(c), and Howard failed to raise new arguments regarding his medical conditions establishing he is incapable of self-care or that his prison cannot provide adequate medical care as required by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b)(1). The district court’s denial of the motion stands.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 1:25-cr-00058-JAO-1

The Ninth Circuit affirmed Marlon Anthony Rogers’s 56-month above-Guidelines sentence for cyberstalking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B). The court applied a plain error standard to reject Rogers’s claim that the district court failed to adequately explain the variance, finding the judge’s reliance on the egregiousness of the conduct permitted meaningful appellate review and did not create a reasonable probability of a different outcome. The court further held that the sentence was substantively reasonable under Gall v. United States, ruling that the district court did not engage in impermissible double-counting by considering factors already reflected in the Guidelines range, but rather properly varied upward because the Guidelines did not sufficiently account for the nature and circumstances of the offense. The judgment of the District Court for the District of Hawaii is affirmed.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 3:07-cv-05634-CRB

The ninth-circuit dismissed in part and affirmed in part the district court’s orders overruling objections to the administration of a secondary distribution of settlement funds from an antitrust class action. The court applied de novo review for Article III standing and abuse of discretion review for the approval of the settlement distribution. The court dismissed the appeal by David Gould for lack of standing because he failed to establish an injury in fact, noting that his theory regarding audit costs lacked evidence linking the cost to the audits and that correcting prior distribution errors did not dilute his share. The court affirmed the denial of Jeanette Stevens, trading as Elm Co.’s objection, holding that she had standing but that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying her claim because Rust Consulting acted within its authority to verify claim validity and Elm Co. failed to respond to requests to verify its undocumented claim. The practical consequence is that Gould’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, while the district court’s approval of the distribution plan as applied to Elm Co. is upheld.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 2:21-cv-01176-JHC

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Alena Kriley’s requests to appoint pro bono counsel and extend filing deadlines, as well as its grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants on all claims. The appellate court reviewed the denial of extension motions for abuse of discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), finding no abuse because Kriley failed to show good cause or excusable neglect; she already possessed necessary medical records and had previously been granted a four-month extension without diligently retaining an expert. Regarding summary judgment, the court applied de novo review and held that Washington’s Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (RCW Chapter 7.70) provided the exclusive remedy for Kriley’s alleged health care injuries, rendering her claims for gross negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation duplicative. Furthermore, because Kriley failed to disclose an expert witness, she could not establish breach of the standard of care or causation for her negligence, lack of informed consent, and loss of chance claims under Washington law. Her wrongful death claim failed because she was not the personal representative of the decedent’s estate, and her medical battery and lack of consent claims failed as a matter of law due to a signed consent form that created a prima facie presumption of consent which she did not rebut. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of counsel appointment under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), determining Kriley did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances or a likelihood of success on the merits, and had sufficiently articulated her claims pro se. The practical consequence is that the district court’s judgment for Defendants stands and the case is closed.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

The eighth circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the Kupper parties in a contract dispute arising from the sale of two car dealerships. Applying North Dakota substantive law, the court held that the district court properly granted partial summary judgment on the earnout payments provision because the Foundation parties’ defense of “failure of consideration” failed; although the Foundation parties alleged breaches regarding inventory management, the Kupper parties had indisputably delivered functioning dealerships that met the specified earnings targets, meaning the object of the agreement was not defeated. The court further held that the Foundation parties waived their argument against joint and several liability by failing to raise it in a timely manner at the district court level. Regarding trial conduct, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district judge’s comments, noting that disparaging remarks were made outside the jury’s presence or were isolated and did not appeal to bias. The court also upheld the limitation on expert testimony regarding inventory reductions, concluding that the contract imposed a duty to manage inventory in accordance with a rolling average rather than maintaining specific levels, thereby requiring evidence of a management decision causing any deviation. Finally, the court affirmed the award of attorney’s fees, ruling that the contract’s fee provision permitted recovery for costs incurred defending Kupper personally as part of enforcing the agreement, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying a 10% reduction to the lodestar amount due to inadequate bookkeeping by prevailing counsel.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

Docket: 1:23-cv-00429-LEK-KJM

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the City and County of Honolulu on all of plaintiff Evgeny Firsov’s claims arising from the denial of his REAL ID Driver’s License application. The court held that Firsov failed to show prejudice from the district court’s decision to grant summary judgment before ruling on his motion to compel, as the dispositive grounds for the City’s victory did not depend on the evidence sought. Regarding the merits, the court ruled that none of Firsov’s claims provided a basis for liability because he lacked a private right of action under the REAL ID Act of 2005, Section 19-149-2 of the Hawai’i Administrative Rules, Article 27 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 26 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or Sections 2 and 3 of the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The court further held that his claim under Section 274B of the Immigration and National Act failed because it applies only to employment discrimination, not DMV licensing. His Equal Protection Clause claim failed because the City’s actions were compelled by federal law rather than being the “moving force” behind the injury, and any local policy lacked discriminatory intent. Finally, his Civil Rights Act claims failed because Title VI does not cover immigration status discrimination, Title III suits are limited to the Attorney General, and Title II does not authorize private damages suits. The practical consequence is that the judgment for the City stands and Firsov’s appeal is dismissed.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

The eighth-circuit affirmed Derek Underdahl’s conviction for possessing ammunition as a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove constructive possession, noting that items such as a debit card, jury summons, and clothing in the shared bedroom allowed a rational jury to infer Underdahl’s knowledge and control over the contraband despite sharing the premises with family members. Regarding the interstate commerce element, the court found expert testimony that the ammunition brands were not manufactured in Iowa sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement, deferring to the jury’s credibility determinations regarding the witness’s reliability. The court further ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to repeat a jury instruction prohibiting consideration of Underdahl’s decision not to testify, as the original instruction had already fairly and adequately covered the law. Finally, the court rejected Underdahl’s as-applied constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1), stating that Eighth Circuit precedent forecloses such challenges and noting his violent criminal history aligns with the statute’s purpose. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-04

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Sun Chemical Corporation, rejecting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s hostile-work-environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court held that it need not address whether the jury instructions properly covered a failure-to-prevent-harassment theory because the evidence did not support liability under either a failure-to-act or failure-to-prevent standard. Applying Eighth Circuit precedent, the court determined that Sun Chemical lacked actual or constructive knowledge of ongoing harassment by the employee Nevarez, as the record showed only a single past incident involving another employee rather than a pattern of behavior that would place the company on notice. Furthermore, the court found that the employer took reasonable preventative remedial action by issuing a written disciplinary warning to Nevarez, which was sufficient given his long service history and lack of prior harassment complaints. Consequently, no reasonable jury could find for the EEOC, and the district court’s judgment is affirmed.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.