eBriefs June 13, 2019


Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Criminal Law and Procedure

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not preclude a federal district court from exercising jurisdiction over a habeas petition filed under 28 U.S.C. §2241. A judge’s determination that manifest necessity justified a mistrial was not an exercise of sound discretion where the judge did not provide any meaningful consideration of alternatives to mistrial. An undisclosed verdict form did not constitute a final verdict for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Gouveia v. Espinda; filed June 12, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-16892


Immigration Law

Although Congress’ two-year reprieve for immigrants residing in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands protected immigrants from removability under 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(6)(A)(i) on the basis that they had not been admitted or paroled into the United States, it did not exempt them from removal based on other grounds of removability. Residence in the commonwealth before U.S. immigration law became effective does not count toward the residence required for naturalization as a U.S. citizen.

Torres v. Barr; filed June 12, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 13-70653



A plaintiff could not bring an abuse of process claim against the government based on the government’s seizure of its property because of §2680(c) of the Federal Tort Claims Act; the §2680(c) exception applies regardless of whether the property was being temporarily or permanently retained, and regardless of whether the property was seized as a part of a criminal investigation; because the property was not seized “solely” for the purpose of forfeiture, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 did not rewaive sovereign immunity to allow the abuse of process claim; the same logic applies to the plaintiff’s conversion claim.

Davinci Aircraft, Inc. v. United States; filed June 12, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 17-55719


California Court of Appeal

Civil Procedure

A trial judge abused his discretion in denying a motion to set aside a default where the warning of the impending default came by email, the attorney was presented with an unreasonably short deadline by which to respond, the attorney had significant family emergencies and there was no real prejudice that would result from granting the motion.

Lasalle v. Vogel; Fourth District, Div. Three; filed June 11, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2691


Civil Procedure

A city attorney had authority to issue administrative subpoenas to look into potential violations of state and municipal law, and the city’s jurisdiction over those violations. Public Utilities Code §1759 does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to enforce administrative subpoenas. The primary jurisdiction doctrine does not apply to stay the enforcement of a valid administrative subpoena.

City and County of San Francisco v. Uber Technologies; First District, Div. Three; filed May 17, 2019, publication ordered June 11, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2696


Criminal Law and Procedure

Under the plain language of Health and Safety Code §11362.1, possession of less than an ounce of cannabis in prison is no longer a felony; the remedy for clearly written language that achieves a dubious policy outcome is not judicial intervention but correction by the electorate or the Legislature.

People v. Raybon; Third District; filed June 11, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2703


Criminal Law and Procedure

Commitment of an insane defendant to a state mental hospital is not a sentence or the entry of judgment, but such a commitment order is considered a final judgment for the limited purpose of appeal and a denial of the defendant’s motion to withdraw her plea is deemed to be an appealable postjudgment order.

People v. John; Fourth District, Div. Two; filed June 12, 2019


Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2709