CTA's 2nd Brief & Response to Plaintiff's 1st Brief - National Center ...

Case: 09-56689 07/26/2010 Page: 16 of 80 ID: 7418245 DktEntry: 45-1
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The District Court's summary judgment rulings are reviewed by this Court de
novo. See Nurre v. Whitehead, 580 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2009). The District
Court's decision to grant leave to the District and Dr. Corbett to amend their answer
is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. See Waldrip v. Hall, 548 F.3d
729,732 (9th Cir. 2008); Owens v. Kaiser Found'n. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708,
712 (9th Cir. 2001). The qualified immunity finding is reviewed de novo. See
Blanford v. Sacramento County, 406 F.3d 1 110, 11 14-15 (9" Cir. 2005).
Whether Farnan's claim for declaratory relief is moot is a question of law that
is reviewed de novo. Cole v. Oroville Union High Schl. Dist., 228 F.3d 1092,1097-98
(9t11 Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); see also Sample v. Johnson, 77 1 F.2d 1335, 1338
(9"' Cir. 1985). If this Court concludes that the claim for declaratory relief is not
moot, then it would proceed to review the District Court's denial of declaratory relief
on the merits. Plaintiff incorrectly asserts that this Court must review the denial of
declaratory relief de novo. (Plaintiffs Opening Br., pp.4, 62.) A district court's
decision to deny declaratory relief should instead be reviewed under the abuse of
discretion standard. Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 5 15 U.S. 277,289 (1995) (rejecting
argument that declaratory relief decisions should be reviewed de novo and stating that
facts bearing on usefulness of declaratory judgment remedy "are peculiarly within"