Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-03

Docket: 1:21-cv-00248-LEK-KJM

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment to police officers and dismissal of claims against the City and County of Honolulu in a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court held that Officer Koanui’s statements characterizing the plaintiff’s retention of her former employer’s business phone as “borderline extortion” were not motivated by retaliation for her attempt to file a criminal complaint, as there was no but-for causal link between her protected activity and the officer’s conduct under *Nieves v. Bartlett*. The court further determined that the equal protection claim failed because undisputed differences in the investigative posture of the respective complaints provided a rational basis for treating the parties differently. Consequently, the conspiracy claims against the officers and the municipal liability claim against Honolulu were also dismissed due to the absence of an underlying constitutional violation.

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: 2026-08-03

Docket: 1:22-cv-00396-LEK-KJM

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for the United States in a Federal Tort Claims Act action alleging medical malpractice during childbirth at Tripler Army Medical Center. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Plaintiffs’ proposed rebuttal expert, Dr. Ofer Levy, because his testimony was duplicative of other experts and should have been disclosed by the initial deadline under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(D)(ii). The court further determined that the exclusion did not require application of the Rule 37(c)(1) framework from *R & R Sails, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania* because it did not amount to dismissal of the claims. Although the district court erred by admitting undisclosed expert testimony from Tripler providers without satisfying Rule 26(a)(2)(C) and Rule 37(c)(1), this error was harmless under Fed. R. Civ. P. 61 and 28 U.S.C. § 2111, as the court would likely have reached the same result based on other retained expert testimony and evidence regarding the standard of care. The appellate court also found no clear error in the district court’s factual findings concerning fetal growth, delivery counseling, and causation of infection, nor did it find an abuse of discretion in limiting cross-examination or allowing the judge to comment on witness credibility during the bench trial. Consequently, the judgment for the government 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: 2026-08-03

Docket: 1:24-cr-00155-AKB-3

The ninth-circuit dismissed the appeal because the defendant waived his right to challenge his sentence in a valid plea agreement. The court applied the standard that a knowing and voluntary appeal waiver is enforceable if it encompasses the specific grounds raised, citing *United States v. Harris*, 628 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2011). Because the defendant did not argue that his waiver was involuntary or inapplicable to his claim regarding safety valve relief eligibility, the court declined to reach the merits of the challenge and dismissed the appeal.

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: 2026-08-03

Docket: 4:23-cr-00073-JST-1

The ninth-circuit affirmed the conviction and sentences for coercion and enticement of a minor and receipt of child pornography, but dismissed the appeal regarding the restitution order due to a valid appeal waiver in the plea agreement. The court applied an independent review standard under *Penson v. Ohio* to determine if any non-frivolous issues existed despite the waiver. While the court identified a potential procedural defect regarding the lack of a reasonably accurate estimate for restitution, it found no actual basis to challenge the award based on the record. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal in light of the enforceable waiver and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw under *Anders v. California*.

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: 2026-08-03

The eighth-circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of Northland Management & Construction, LLC on its Missouri state law inverse condemnation claim and class-of-one equal protection claim against the City of Parkville, but reversed and remanded for recalculation of damages. The court held that the City’s denial of a final Certificate of Occupancy constituted an unreasonable enforcement of land use regulations that caused a nuisance under Missouri law, satisfying the elements of inverse condemnation because Northland’s grading complied with the city-approved plat and accepted practices. Regarding equal protection, the court found the City intentionally treated Northland differently from similarly situated property owners without a rational basis for doing so. However, the court reversed the damages award because the district court calculated losses based on the diminished value of the lot while also ordering the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, which would result in double recovery; the case is remanded to recalculate damages based on the diminution in value of the use and occupancy of the property for the specific period during which the harm occurred.

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: 2026-08-03

Docket: 5:23-cv-02347-SSS-SP

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant Elsa F. Callahan and its denial of plaintiff Robert J. Hopkins’s motion for reconsideration. The court applied de novo review to the summary judgment ruling and abuse of discretion review to the denial of reconsideration. The appellate court held that all of Hopkins’s claims were time-barred under applicable California statutes of limitations. Specifically, the breach of fiduciary duty claims were untimely because Hopkins knew or reasonably should have discovered the factual bases for his claims more than three years prior to filing, pursuant to Cal. Prob. Code § 16460(a). The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was also untimely as the alleged distress occurred outside the two-year limitations period set forth in Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1. Regarding the motion for reconsideration, the court found no abuse of discretion because Hopkins merely restated arguments previously raised and failed to demonstrate newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law. The practical consequence is that the district court’s judgment stands and the 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 Ninth Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-03

Docket: 2:23-cv-00666-DJH

The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in a prisoner’s civil rights action alleging inadequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment. The court applied de novo review, holding that Dunlap failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding deliberate indifference by nurse practitioners, as his mere disagreement with his medical plan did not demonstrate that the treatment was medically unacceptable or chosen in conscious disregard of excessive risk. Additionally, the court found no evidence of a NaphCare policy requiring monitoring of chronic conditions rather than recommending treatment, and deemed claims regarding withheld medical records unpreserved for appeal. The practical consequence is that the district court’s judgment stands and Dunlap’s appeal is denied.

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: 2026-08-03

The ninth-circuit granted Raminder Singh’s petition for review and remanded his case to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) for further proceedings regarding his applications for asylum and withholding of removal. The court held that the BIA committed reversible error by failing to conduct a reasoned analysis of Singh’s individualized situation when determining whether he could safely relocate within India. Specifically, the court found that the lower tribunals failed to consider whether Singh’s specific persecutors—members of the Congress Party and the Bharatiya Janata Party—would target him outside of Punjab, ignored his stated intent to continue proselytizing for his political party, relied on impermissible speculation based on omissions in a Law Library of Congress report rather than affirmative findings, and improperly anchored their analysis on persecution of Sikhs rather than Mann Party members. The practical consequence is that the BIA must reassess the feasibility of internal relocation under these corrected legal standards.

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 Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-08-03

Docket: 1:24-cv-01897-MHC

The eleventh-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Haley Cole’s employment discrimination claims against Accenture, LLP and its executives. The court held that the district court properly dismissed claims against executives Shook and Oakes for lack of personal jurisdiction under Georgia’s long-arm statute, as they did not commit tortious acts within Georgia, and declined to grant belated jurisdictional discovery. The court further affirmed the dismissal of Title VII claims as time-barred because the alleged discriminatory acts occurred more than 180 days before Cole filed her EEOC charge, finding that neither the continuing violation doctrine nor equitable tolling applied. The court also upheld the dismissal of the constructive discharge claim for failure to state a claim, noting that the working conditions did not compel a reasonable person to resign. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of leave to file a second amended complaint adding Americans with Disabilities Act claims as futile, because the proposed allegations failed to plausibly state a failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, or retaliation under the ADA, and the district court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.

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: 2026-08-03

Docket: 2:23-cv-00455-

The ninth circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ First Amendment claims regarding federal food-labeling regulations prohibiting FODMAP information on product labels, holding that the plaintiffs adequately pleaded Article III standing. For plaintiff Przybocki, the court applied the “listener standing” doctrine established in *Murthy v. Missouri*, finding she had a concrete and specific connection to speakers (including Gourmend and other food producers) who would likely include FODMAP information on labels but for the challenged regulations, thereby suffering an injury-in-fact as a consumer denied access to that speech. For plaintiffs Vakil and Gourmend, the court applied the *Susan B. Anthony List* standard for pre-enforcement First Amendment challenges, determining they faced a credible threat of prosecution based on their concrete plan to engage in prohibited speech and specific warnings from the FSIS and FDA that such claims constitute impermissible nutrient-content claims. The court affirmed, in a separate memorandum disposition, the dismissal of Vakil and Gourmend’s claims against the USDA for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The practical consequence is that the case proceeds to the merits on the First Amendment challenges against the FDA and regarding Przybocki’s claims against the USDA.

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