The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in SATEY v. JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., No. 06-56370, a federal appeal. The panel consisted of Betty B. Fletcher and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges, and Samuel P. King, Senior Judge.

N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge:
We hold that Appellant Shane Satey’s claim against JPMorgan Chase & Company, d/b/a Chase Bank USA NA (”Chase”) fails because Chase is not a “claimant” under Cali. . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in COUNTY LOS ANGELES v. LEAVITT, No. 06-55222, an appeal in a civil action against the United States. The panel consisted of Betty B. Fletcher, Stephen Reinhardt, and Pamela Ann Rymer, Circuit Judges.

RYMER, Circuit Judge:
This appeal, which involves Medicare reimbursement of indirect medical education expenses (IME) incurred by a public teaching hospital with an approved intern and resident program, presents two questions: first, whether it was arbitrary and capricious for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to interpret the Medicare statute and regulations providing for IME payment on the basis of “available beds” as presumptively meaning physical beds, when the hospital’s fiscal intermediary had previously accepted a calculation based on budgeted beds; and second, whether the Secretary’s findings in this case were supported by substantial evidence. Los Angeles County/University of Southern California Medical Center (County/USC or Med Center) appeals the district court’s judgment upholding a final determination by the Provider Reimbursement Review Board (PRRB) that County/ USC’s intermediary, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (Blue Cross), properly used a physical bed count in the formula for calculating the hospital’s IME adjustment for fiscal year ending (FYE) June 30, 1994. We conclude that the Sec. . .

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I agree with the majority that the Secretary did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when he switched from using the number of budgeted beds to using the number of physical beds for calculating the Medicare IME adjustment. I also agree that the Secretary’s interpretation of “available beds” as presumptively meaning physical beds is entitled to deference from this court and is reasonable as a general matter. However, because I believe that County/USC met its burden of rebutting the presumption and showing that certain beds should have been excluded from Med Center’s available bed count in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1994 (”FY1994) -namely the 123 beds that made up the difference between the number of physical beds and the number of budgeted beds -I would hold that the Provider Reimbursement Review Board’s (”Board”) decision was arbitrary and capricious. As the majority explains, the relevant interpretive regulation directs that “beds available at any time during the cost reporting period are presumed to be available during the entire cost reporting period.” PRM-1 § 2405.3; Maj. Op. at 3231. However the majority relegates to a parenthetical a crucial caveat: hospitals may provide “evidence to the contrary” in order to “exclude beds from the count.” Id. In other words, hospitals have the opportunity to prove that certain beds should not be considered available and thus should be excluded from the count. At a hearing before the Board, County/USC presented evidence that the 123 physical beds that were not included in the budget should be excluded from the IME calculation because those beds were not actually available for patient use during the year. Disregarding the substantial evidence presented by County/USC, the Board concluded that all 1,320 physical beds should be considered . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. SMITH, No. 05-50375, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Dorothy W. Nelson and Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Circuit Judges, and Robert C. Jones, District Judge.

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:
We must primarily decide whether a jury instruction impermissibly relieved the government of its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used a “dangerous weapon,” an essential element of the crime. I In August 1999, four inmates at the federal penitentiary in Lompoc, California, were in the recreation cage of the Special Housing Unit: Malik Smith, Charles Wesley Helem, George W. Jeffries, and Milton Johnson. After hearing scuffling noises, prison guards went to the cage, where they saw Smith stabbing Jeffries with a sharpened plastic object while Helem held him from behind. The object snapped into two pieces, but Smith continued to use one of the pieces to stab Jeffries. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in MOMENI v. CHERTOFF, No. 07-55018, an administrative appeal. The panel consisted of Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges.

KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge:
We consider whether a traveler to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program may contest deportation pending an application for adjustment of status. Momeni argues that under Freeman v. Gonzales the “no contest” provision of the 90-day tourist program does not apply to him, because he has since filed (and has pending) an application for adjustment of status, based on his marriage to a United States citizen. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in DAVIS v. TEAM ELECTRIC, No. 05-35877, a federal appeal. The panel consisted of Alfred T. Goodwin, Stephen Reinhardt, and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges.

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:
In this sexual discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., electrician Christie Davis contends that her former employer, Team Electric Company, treated her worse than the male employees at a work site that had no other women until she contacted the state civil rights agency; retaliated against her for filing a discrimination complaint with the agency; and failed to prevent her supervisors from creating and maintaining a hostile work environment. The district court granted Team Electric’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. We reverse. I. Background In early May 2000, Team Electric hired Christie Davis as a journeyman electrician. On October 19, 2000, Team Electric assigned her to a project at the Clackamas County High School. At the time, she was apparently the only female electrician on the site. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in USA v. CRAWFORD, No. 06-30205, a criminal appeal. The panel consisted of Betty B. Fletcher, Susan P. Graber, and M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judges.

McKEOWN, Circuit Judge: Antonio Feliciano Crawford raises a number of sentencing issues that have now been answered by the spate of recent . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in PERRETTA v. PROMETHEUS DEVELOP, No. 06-15526, a diversity appeal. The panel consisted of David R. Thompson and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges, and William Q. Hayes, District Judge.

MILAN D. SMITH, JR., Circuit Judge:
This action for breach of fiduciary duty requires us to decide what vote of the limited partners of a California limited partnership is necessary to ratify a self-interested transaction proposed by the partnership’s general partner. We hold that only the partnership agreement may vary the unanimous ratification requirement of California law, and that it would be “manifestly unreasonable” for a partnership agreement to include votes cast by an interested general partner or its affiliates in a ratification vote. We reverse the decision of the district court. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Prometheus Income Partners, LP (Partnership) was a California limited partnership, organized to manage two large apartment complexes in Santa Clara, California. Its general partner was Defendant-Appellee Prometheus Development Co., Inc. (PDC), a California corporation. PDC is 100%owned by the DNS Trust, a trust effectively controlled by Defendant-Appellee Sanford N. Diller (Diller), who is also PDC’s sole director, President, and CFO. PlaintiffsAppellants Louis and Frank Perretta (Plaintiffs) were limited. . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in TRUSTEES OF SO CAL v. FLORES, No. 06-55812, a federal appeal. The panel consisted of Alfred T. Goodwin, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, and William A. Fletcher, Circuit Judges.

GOODWIN, Circuit Judge:
The Trustees of the Southern California IBEW-NECA Pension Trust Fund (”Trustees”) appeal the district court’s judgment against them in their action to collect delinquent trust fund contributions from employer Herman Flores. The Trustees contend that the district court erred by holding that the term “covered employees” in the relevant collective bargaining agreements is ambiguous and by considering extrinsic evidence of the parties’ oral representations. We hold that the collective bargaining agreements require Flores to make benefit contributions for all electrical workers engaged in project work. For this reason, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND In late August 2003, the Los Angeles Unified School District awarded a construction contract to general contractor . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in FIRST AMERICAN v. USA, No. 05-35520, an appeal in a civil action against the United States. The panel consisted of Mary M. Schroeder, Andrew J. Kleinfeld and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.

KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge:
This is a tax collection case about a third party challenge to a tax assessment and lien on an earlier owner’s property. FACTS In 1991, Penny Jensen’s mother, Roberta Smith, died, and Jensen was named the personal representative of her mother’s estate. The estate consisted of three houses and the stock of a corporation that owned a hamburger drive-in (Frisko Freeze, Inc.). The estate filed its federal estate tax return in 1992. The return valued the estate at $1,302,129, calculated taxes at $144,323, and elected to pay the $144,323 with about $45,000 down and the rest on an installment plan. Jensen then conveyed the three houses to herself and her husband. Over the next two years, Jensen sold the houses to three different purchasers. All were bona fide purchasers for value, and all obtained title insurance from the three plaintiffs in this case. Despite their title searches, all three title insurance companies did not discover that the houses were encumbered by tax liens because the taxes on the estate were largely unpaid. Subsequently the IRS audited the estate and concluded that the hamburger drive-in was worth more than the $762,275 valuation the estate had put on it. Eventually, in 1994 (after the three houses had been sold) the IRS and Jensen, as personal representative of the estate, compromised on a value of $911,987, increasing the estate taxes by $49,416. Jensen, as 26 U.S.C. § 6166 provides for installment plans for payment of estate taxes where much of the estate’s value is an interest in a closely held business. . . .

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today released an opinion in FRIENDS OF YOSEMITE v. KEMPTHORNE, No. 07-15124, an appeal in a civil action against the United States. The panel consisted of Alfred T. Goodwin, A. Wallace Tashima, and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.

WARDLAW, Circuit Judge:
Twenty years after the Merced River, which lies in the heart of the Yosemite National Park, was designated a Wild and Scenic River, and seventeen years after the National Park Service (”NPS”) was statutorily required to prepare a Comprehensive Management Plan (”CMP”) for the Merced Wild . . .