Case Nos , , (Consolidated) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ESTATE OF ROBERT GRAHAM,
|
|
- Poppy Williams
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case = , 09/19/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 91, Page 1 of 19 Case Nos , , (Consolidated) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ESTATE OF ROBERT GRAHAM, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, vs. SOTHEBY'S, INC., Defendant and Appellee. THE SAM FRANCIS FOUNDATION, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, vs. CHRISTIE'S, S, INC., Defendant and Appellee. THE SAM FRANCIS FOUNDATION, et al., Plaintiffs' and Appellants, vs. EBAY, INC., Defendant and Appellee. APPELLANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO COURT'S AUGUST 29, 2014 ORDER Appeal From The United States District Court, Central District of California, Case Nos. CV JHN (FFMx), CV JHN ~FFMX~, (FFMx), cv CV s62z J~v JHN ~PLaX~ (PLAx) The Honorable Jacqueline H. Nguyen BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP Eric M. George (State Bar No ) Ira Bibbero (State Bar No ) 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California Tel: (310) Fax: (310) GREINES, MARTIN, STEIN & RICHLAND LLP Irving H. Greines (State Bar No ) Gary D. Rowe (State Bar No ) 5900 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA Tel: (310) Fax: (310) Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Appellant
2 Case = , 09/19/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 91, Page 2 of 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION... 2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY... 4 ARGUMENT... 9 A. En Banc Hearing is Warranted And Should Be Granted Under FRAP 35(a)(1) Since There Is Inconsistency In The Language Through Not The Holdings Of The Harris And Rocky Mountain Decisions... 9 B. En Banc Review Is Also Warranted Under FRAP 35(a)(2) Because This Case Presents Issues Of Exceptional Importance Involving The Outer Boundaries Of Dormant Commerce Clause Jurisprudence And The Invalidation Of A State Statute Uniquely Benefiting Artists Whose Works Are Sold Either In California Or By California Residents CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH FRAP 32(A) AND NINTH CIRCUIT RULE
3 Case = , 09/19/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 91, Page 3 of 19 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Pages) Page(s) American Beverage Assoc. v. Snyder, 735 F.3d 362 (6th Cir. 2013) (Sutton, J., concurring)... 3, 13 Ass 'n 'n des Eleveurs de Canards et d d'oies du Quebec v. Harris, 729 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2013)...2, 2, 6-11, 13 Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977)... 8, 12 Healy v. Beer Inst.,, 491 U.S. 324 (1989)...2, 2, 4-11, 13 New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)... 4 Pharm. Research &Mfrs. of America v. Walsh, 538 U.S. 644 (2003)...2, 2, 7-9, 11, 12, 13 Quill Corp v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992) Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, 730 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2013)...2, 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13 Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, 740 F.3d 507 (2014)... 7 S.D. Myers, Inc. v. City &County of San Francisco, 253 F.3d 461 (9th Cir. 2001) STATE STATUTES Cal.. Civ. Code Cal.. Civ. Code 986(a)... 4 Cal.. Civ. Code 986(a)(1) ii
4 Case = , 09/19/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 91, Page 4 of 19 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont'd) Page Cal.. Civ. Code 986(b)(2)... 4 Cal. Civ. Code 986(b)(4)... 4 Cal. Civ. Code 986(c)(1)... 4 Cal.. Civ. Code 986(d) :... 4 RULES FRAP3 35(a)(1) , 9, 11 FRAP 35(a)(2)...3, 3, 12, 14 OTHER AUTHORITIES Brannon P. Denning, Extraterritoriality and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Doctrinal Post-Mortem, 73 La. L. Rev 979, (2013) Dan Farber, Regulators Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Extraterritorial Dilemma, Legal Planet (June 24, 2013) (accessed at regulators-between-a-rock-and-ahard-place-the-extraterritorial-dilemma/) Office of the Register of Copyrights, Resale Royalties: An Updated Analysis, app. E (2013) (accessed at resaleroyalty/usco-resaleroyalty.pd~ resaleroyalty/usco-resaleroyalty.pdf) iii
5 Case = , 09/19/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 91, Page 5 of 19 INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs-Appellants respectfully submit this brief in response to this Court's August 29, 2014 Order inviting further briefing. Citing Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, 730 F.3d 1070, 1101 (9th Cir. 2013) [herein, "Rocky Mountain"] and Ass 'n 'n des Eleveurs de Canards et d'oies du Quebec v. Harris, 729 F.3d 937, 951 (9th Cir. 2013) [herein, "Harris"], the Order asks the parties to address "whether there is a conflict in this Circuit's case law regarding the applicability of Healy v. Beer Inst., 491 U.S. 324 (1989)" and "whether this case should be heard en bane" banc." We submit this case should be heard en banc for two reasons. First: Although the holdings in Rocky Mountain and Harris are entirely in accord, language in the two cases is inconsistent, thereby meriting en banc consideration "to secure or maintain uniformity of the court's decisions." FRAP 35(a)(1). Specifically, as we explain in Section A, below, Rocky Mountain contains language arguably undermining the limitation that Harris and Pharm. Research &Mfrs.& ofamerica v. Walsh, 538 U.S. 644, (2003) [herein "Walsh"] placed on Healy's extraterritoriality doctrine that Healy reaches only statutes and regulations that dictate or control prices in in other states. En banc review is thus needed to secure uniformity of the Court's decisions. FRAP 35(a)(1)
6 Case = , 09/19/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 91, Page 6 of 19 Second: En banc review is warranted under FRAP 35(a)(2) because defendants' challenge to the 37 year-old statute at issue here, the Resale Royalty Act (the "Act"), California Civil Code 986, raises "a question of exceptional importance." The instant case presents an issue whether Healy's extraterritoriality doctrine is indeed limited to statutes or regulations that dictate or control prices in other states at at the forefront of Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence. See, e.g., American Beverage Assoc. v. Snyder, 735 F.3d 362, 377, 378 (6th Cir. 2013) (Sutton, J., concurring) (expressing "skepticism about the extraterritoriality doctrine" as "a relic of the old world with no useful role to play in the new"). Although legislation in Australia and some 78 countries throughout Europe, Asia, Africa, and North and South America entitles artists to a royalty when their works are resold, see Office of the Register of Copyrights, Resale Royalties: An Updated Analysis, app. E (2013) (accessed at resaleroyalty/usco-resaleroyalty.pdf), fl, only California has done so in the United States. The Act, though held by the district court to violate Healy's extraterritoriality doctrine, indisputably does nothing to control or regulate the pricing of art sales, either in California or elsewhere. The Dormant Commerce Clause does not preclude California's enactment or enforcement of legislation supporting artists with a resale royalty where, as here, there is neither out-of-state
7 Case = , 09/19/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 91, Page 7 of 19 regulation nor price controls, and where the levy imposed is "California-centric" i.e. limited to transactions completed in California or involving California residents. The district court's holding to the contrary relied upon an unprecedented expansion of Healy to invalidate an Act that has never been shown, during its 37 years of existence, to impede interstate commerce in the arts. The exceptional importance attaching to California's legislative prerogative to further the arts, without judicial interference, justifies en banc review. See New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) ("It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State rrsay, may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."). FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY The facts and procedural events that led to this Court's August 29, 2014 Order are briefly as follows: 1. The Act took effect in See Cal. Civ. Code 986(d). It requires that, when a work of fine art is resold either in California or by a California resident out of state, the seller or seller's agent must pay the artist 5% of the sale price. See Cal. Civ. Code 986(a). The Act applies when fine art is resold, at a profit, for more than $1,000 and the artist is a citizen of the United States or a resident of California for two years. 986(b)(2), (b)(4), (c)(1). When a work of
8 Case = , 09/19/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 91, Page 8 of 19 fine art is sold at auction, or by a gallery, dealer, broker, museum or other person acting as the seller's agent, the agent must withhold 5% of the sales price and transmit that amount to the artist. 986(a)(1). The Act gives the artist a right to sue a seller or seller's agent for failing to pay the royalty. 986(a)(1). (See AOB 7-8.) 2. Plaintiffs, a putative class of fine-art artists, sued defendant auction houses, Sotheby's, Christie's, and ebay, all alb of which have a substantial physical presence in California, for failing to withhold and transmit the 5%royalty as required by the Act. 3. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under the Dormant Commerce Clause. While defendants have never contended or shown that the Act favors Californians over residents of other states, they claimed the Act violates the Dormant Commerce Clause because it operates outside of California and, thus, violates the Healy extraterritoriality doctrine, which (they argued) prohibits one state from directly controlling commerce in other states. (See AOB 5-7, 8 FOR EOR , ) 4. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss on May 17, 2012 and entered Judgment on June 6, (1 FOR EOR ) Invoking the Healy extraterritoriality doctrine, the court below held the Act violated the ) 5
9 Case = , 09/19/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 91, Page 9 of 19 Dormant Commerce Clause because it "explicitly regulates applicable sales of fine art occurring wholly outside California." (1 FOR ) 5. Between the date that the District Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims and the date appellate briefing was completed, this Court decided the Harris and Rocky Mountain cases, which hold as follows: a. Harris: This case was decided on August 30, 2013 (per Judges Pregerson, Fisher, and Daniel). The decision rejected a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge to a California statute banning the sale of foie gras in California. Harris held that, although the statute precluded out-of-state foie gras producers from selling that product in California, it did not discriminate against interstate commerce, nor did it impose an impermissible extraterritorial regulation under Healy. A petition for certiorari in this case is pending. b. Rocky Mountain: On September 18, 2013, a different panel of this Court (per Judges Gould, D.W. Nelson, and Murguia) decided Rocky Mountain by a 2-1 vote. The Court again rejected a ahealy-based Dormant Commerce Clause challenge to California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fuels burned in California, even though some of the fuels are produced in other states and the emissions generated in.the out-of-state production and transportation of the fuels are covered by the regulation. Rocky Mountain held that California's standards neither discriminated
10 Case = , 09/19/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 91, Page 10 of 19 against interstate commerce nor constituted impermissible extraterritorial regulation under Healy, even though such standards could be characterized as regulating conduct taking place outside of California.' The Supreme Court denied certiorari in this case on June 30, On appeal to this Court, Plaintiffs-Appellants offer three principal reasons why the district court erred in holding the Act unconstitutional under Healy: a. By its own terms and those of cases subsequently interpreting it, Healy does not apply to the Act. The Act simply does not control or regulate the out-of-state sale of art: it does not limit a California seller's right to sell art in another state, nor does it dictate the terms, conditions or prices of such sales. Thus, the Act, unlike the Connecticut statute invalidated in Healy, does not compel "an out-of-state merchant to seek regulatory approval in one State before undertaking a transaction in another." Healy, 491 U.S. at 337. The Supreme Court's decision in Walsh and this Court's decision in Harris expressly confirm that Healy is ' Judge Murguia dissented from the non-discrimination holding and, accordingly, did not reach the Healy question. This Court declined to rehear the case en banc. Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, 740 F.3d 507 (2014). Judge Gould wrote an opinion concurring in the denial of en banc rehearing, id. at 509, while Judges M. Smith, O'Scannlain, Callahan, Bea, Ikuta, and N.R. Smith dissented from the denial of en banc rehearing. Id. at 512. Judge Murguia joined the dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc only on the issue of discrimination against interstate commerce. Id
11 Case = , 09/19/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 91, Page 11 of 19 inapplicable to this case because, they hold, Healy applies only to state laws that control prices in other states.2 2 (See ARB 10-15; AOB ) b. The Act's impact is exclusively California-centric. The Act requires the seller of fine art to pay 5% of the sale proceeds, but only if the sale is completed in California or completed out-of-state by a California resident; the levy's impact is thus akin to a gross receipts, income, or capital gains tax on proceeds received by a California resident on any type of out-of-state transaction. For this reason, the applicable test is not Healy, but the four-part test set out in Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274 (1977) a test that governs the constitutionality under the Dormant Commerce Clause of state taxes and, we submit, other monetary levies that arguably have out-of-state reach. The Act satisfies the Complete Auto test. (See AOB 27-38, ARB ) c. Nor is Healy violated by an application of the Act to defendant auction houses, Christie's, Sotheby's, and ebay, each of which has a substantial physical presence in California. In requiring these defendants to collect and transmit the 5%levy owed by a California seller when the auction sales are conducted outside of California, the Act conforms to a long line of Supreme Court 2 Walsh held that Healy applies only to state laws that "regulate the prices paid" or the "terms of transactions that occur elsewhere." Walsh, 538 U.S. at 658, 669. Harris held that Healy is "not applicable to a statute that does not dictate the price of a product and does not `t[ie] the price of its in-state products to out-of-state prices."' prices.'" Harris, 729 F.3d at 951 (quoting Walsh, 538 U.S. at 669)
12 Case = , 09/19/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 91, Page 12 of 19 cases (culminating in Quill Corp v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992)) holding that under the Dormant Commerce Clause states may properly impose tax collection and transmittal obligations on out-of-state merchants with a physical presence in the state. (See AOB 18-25, ARB ) 7. The present case was argued on April 8, 2014, before a Ninth Circuit panel comprised of Judges Fernandez, N.R. Smith, and Murguia. No decision has issued. ARGUMENT A. En En Banc Banc Hearing Is Is Warranted And Should Be Granted Under FRAP 35(a)(1) Since There Is Inconsistency In The Language Though Not The Holdings Of The Harris And Rocky Mountain Decisions. As addressed in this Court's August 29, 2014 Order, inconsistent language employed in the two cited decisions despite the cases' holdings being entirely in accord warrants en en banc review under FRAP 35(a)(1): Harris expressly restricts application of Healy to legislation or regulation that directly controls out-of-state prices. 729 F.3d at 951 (quoting Walsh, 538 U.S. at 669 (Healy is "not applicable to a statute that does not dictate the price of a product and does not `t[ie] lie] the price of its in-state products to out-ofstate prices"').). prices'").)
13 Case = , 09/19/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 91, Page 13 of 19 Rocky Mountain contains language that arguably interprets Healy more expansively than Harris allows. In upholding California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Rocky Mountain stated that the regulation "says nothing at all about ethanol produced, sold, and used outside California, it does not require other jurisdictions to adopt reciprocal standards before their ethanol can be sold in California, it makes no effort to ensure the price of ethanol is lower in California than in other states, and it imposes no civil or criminal penalties on non-compliant transactions completed wholly out of state." 730 F.3d at (emphasis added). One potential implication is that, if California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard imposed penalties on transactions completed outside of California, the result might be different. By listing what California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard is not about, the decision implies that Healy's extra-territorial preclusion might extend to situations well beyond a state's effort to control out-of-state pricing. For example, under the above-quoted language, it might be said that, even if there were no out-of-state price controls, Healy might still apply if a state were to impose a levy on transactions that closed or were completed out of state. Any interpretation of Rocky Mountain that might permit Healy to apply to cases not involving out-of-state price controls would contradict the holding in Harris. While we submit that the holdings in Harris and Rocky Mountain are 4~s~~s.i
14 Case = , 09/19/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 91, Page 14 of 19 consistent,3 3 the divergence between Harris's absolute rule and the variance that Rocky Mountain's language might permit warrants en banc review "to secure or maintain uniformity of the court's decisions" under FRAP 35(a)(1) The holdings are consistent because both cases reject Dormant Commerce Clause challenges based on Healy's extraterritoriality doctrine; both cases affirm as constitutional two California laws that regulate what out-of-state businesses may and may not do when selling products in California. Rocky Mountain rejected a Healy-based claim that California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard had the "practical effect" of "control[ling] conduct beyond the boundaries of the state" because it regulated the "lifecycle" emissions of fuel produced in other states, rather than just the emissions that resulted from burning such fuel in California. Rocky Mountain, 730 F.3d at 1101 (quoting Healy, 491 U.S. 336). Rocky Mountain observed that "the Supreme Court hasrarely rarely held that statutes violate the extraterritoriality doctrine," 730 F.3d at 1101, noted that the "two most prominent of such cases where a violation did occur" involved "price-affirmation statutes," id., and emphasized that Walsh, 538 U.S. at , "declined to extend the [Healy extraterritoriality] doctrine" beyond state laws that regulated `the 'the price of any outof-state transaction'or `t[ied] the price of its in-state products to out-of-state prices."' prices.'" Id. at 1103 (quoting Walsh, 538 U.S. at ). 4 4 Both Harris and Rocky Mountain also rejected the claim the California regulations in question would balkanize the relevant markets and conflict with the laws and regulations of other states. See Harris, 729 F.3d at 951; Rocky Mountain, 730 F.3d Both panels followed S.D. Myers, Inc. v. City &County& of San Francisco, 253 F.3d 461, 470 (9th Cir. 2001), in holding that a party attacking a state law on the ground that it will create conflicting regulatory standards must point to actual or imminent legislative conflict, rather than engage in speculation. See Harris, 729 F.3d at 951; Rocky Mountain, 730 F.3d at
15 Case = , 09/19/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 91, Page 15 of 19 B. En En Banc Banc Review Is Is Also Warranted Under FRAP 35(a)(2) Because This Case Presents Issues Of Exceptional Importance Involving The Outer Boundaries Of Dormant Commerce Clause Jurisprudence And The Invalidation Of A State Statute Uniquely Benefiting Artists Whose Works Are Sold Either In California Or By California Residents. Plaintiffs-Appellants submit that that this case should be heard en banc for the separate reason that it presents questions of exceptional importance. See FRAP 35(a)(2). Defendants successfully challenged the constitutionality of a state statute that, for some 37 years, has expressed the will of California citizens to encourage the arts by affording artists the benefit of a levy imposed on intra-california fine-- art transactions or on the proceeds that a California resident earns from an out-ofstate fine-art sale. The district court invalidated the Act on the basis of arguments that, if correct, would extend the outer boundary of the Dormant Commerce Clause to reach and invalidate laws that that do do not not discriminate against out-of-state residents and that affect only transactions concluded in California or attach to the proceeds California residents earn from sales outside of California. No case has ever gone so far, thus presenting the first-impression question whether, in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Complete Auto and Walsh, and this Court's decisions
16 Case = , 09/19/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 91, Page 16 of 19 in Harris and Rocky Mountain, Healy's extraterritoriality doctrine may permissibly be extended to apply here even though the Act does not dictate, control or regulate out-of-state pricing and, indeed, burdens in-state residents alone. This issue lies at cutting edge of Dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence, especially in this interconnective age, where millions of commercial transactions occur daily across state borders and regulations invariably have effects in other states. See, e.g., Am. Beverage Assoc., 735 F.3d at 379 (6th Cir. 2013) (Sutton, J., concurring) ("The modern reality is that the States frequently regulate activities that occur entirely within one State but that have effects in many."); Brannon P. Denning, Extraterritoriality and the Dormant Commerce Clause: A Doctrinal Post-Mortem, 73 La. L. Rev 979, (2013) (tracing "retrenchment" of the Healy extraterritoriality doctrine after Walsh, where "lower courts have generally restricted extraterritoriality along the lines suggested by the court's narrow reading of its previous cases," in the process making "clear that extraterritoriality is not an all-purpose deregulatory tool allowing interstate companies to escape the reach of state legislators and regulators where they do business, even though compliance causes effects that are felt beyond the regulating jurisdiction."); Dan Farber, Regulators Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The Extraterritorial Dilemma, Legal Planet (June 24, 2013) (accessed at regulators-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-the-extraterritorial-dilemma/) -a -rock -and -a -hard -place -the -extraterritorial -dilemma/) 4~s~~s.i ,1 13
17 Case = , 09/19/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 91, Page 17 of 19 ("Current dormant commerce clause doctrine creates an incredible dilemma for state lawmakers. No matter what they do, they are at serious risk of attack under the dormant commerce clause."). For this reason, too, en banc review is appropriate and should be granted under FRAP 35(a)(2). CONCLUSION This case merits an en banc hearing to secure uniformity of decision and to resolve questions of exceptional importance. DATED: September 19, 2014 Respectfully submitted, BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP Eric M. George e~eorgena egeorge@bgrfirm.com e,bgrfirm.com Ira Bibbero ibibbero@bgrfirm.com e,bgrfirm.com GREINES, MARTIN, STEIN & RICHLAND LLP Irving H. Greines Gary D. Rowe By /s/ Eric M. George e Eric M. George Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Appellants The Sam Francis Foundation, Estate of Robert Graham, Chuck Close, and Laddie John Dill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated a~s~~s.i
18 Case = , 09/19/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 91, Page 18 of 19 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH FRAP 32(a) AND NINTH CIRCUIT RULE 32-1 Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 32(a)(7)(C) and Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1, the attached supplemental brief is proportionately spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or more and contains 2,955 words, including footnotes. Counsel relies on the word count of the computer program used to prepare this brief. DATED: September 19, 2014 Respectfully submitted, BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP Eric M. George e~eor~e(a~b~rfirm.com egeorge@bgrfirm.com Ira Bibbero ibibbero(a~,bgrfirm.com ibibbero@bgrfirm.corn GREINES, MARTIN, STEIN & RICHLAND LLP Irving H. Greines Gary D. Rowe By /s/ Eric M. George e Eric M. George Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Appellants The Sam Francis Foundation, Estate of Robert Graham, Chuck Close, and Laddie John Dill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated 4~s~~s.i
19 Case = , 09/19/2014, ID = , DktEntry = 91, Page 19 of 19 9th Circuit Case Numbers) Number(s) , , (Consolidated) NC~TI;: NOTE: To "f`o secure se~~u~e your ~'ot:~r input, you yott yc~t~ should print the tilled-in fille.cl-ire form ~[`orm to PDF Pl)1~' (Tile (1-'ile `Print > Print :`> I'!)! I'1)f~` Prinleri( /'r ri~~~r%"c'~~eatur). realor). ********************************************************************************* CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE When All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system on (date) on (date) Sep 19, 2014 I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system. Signature (use "s/" format) s/ Eric M. George ********************************************************************************* ********************************************************************************* CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE When Not All Case Participants are Registered for the Appellate CM/ECF System I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system on (date) Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the appellate CM/ECF system. I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered CM/ECF users. I have mailed the foregoing document by First-Class Mail, postage prepaid, or have dispatched it to a third party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days to the following non-cm/ecf participants: Signature (use "s/" format)
Nos , IN THE Supreme Court of the United States
Nos. 13-1148, 13-1149 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ROCKY MOUNTAIN FARMERS UNION, et al., Petitioners, and AMERICAN FUEL & PETROCHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Petitioners, V. RICHARD
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON In the Matter of GEORGIA-PACIFIC CONSUMER PRODUCTS (CAMAS LLC and CLATSKANIE PEOPLE' S UTILITY DISTRICT Petitioners. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ REPLY BRIEF OF NOBLE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs-Appellants, Decision Filed Mar. 5, 2014 ED PRIETO; COUNTY OF YOLO,
Case: 11-16255 03/28/2014 ID: 9036451 DktEntry: 80 Page: 1 of 15 11-16255 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ADAM RICHARDS, et. al., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, Before: O SCANNLAIN,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Petitioners, Real Parties in Interest.
Case: 10-72977 09/29/2010 Page: 1 of 7 ID: 7491582 DktEntry: 6 10-72977 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MATTHEW CATE, Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and
More informationCase No IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit DAVID JOHN SLATER, WILDLIFE PERSONALITIES, LTD.,
Case: 16-15469, 06/15/2018, ID: 10910417, DktEntry: 64, Page 1 of 10 Case No. 16-15469 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit NARUTO, A CRESTED MACAQUE, BY AND THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIENDS,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case: 14-80121 09/11/2014 ID: 9236871 DktEntry: 4 Page: 1 of 13 Docket No. 14-80121 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit MICHAEL A. COBB, v. CITY OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA, IN RE: CITY OF
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- SAM FRANCIS FOUNDATION,
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-3452 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Respondent-Appellant. Appeal From
More informationCase No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHELLE FLANAGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Case: 18-55717, 11/20/2018, ID: 11095057, DktEntry: 27, Page 1 of 21 Case No. 18-55717 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHELLE FLANAGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. XAVIER
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No TODD S. GLASSEY AND MICHAEL E. MCNEIL,
Case: 14-17574, 05/18/2015, ID: 9541767, DktEntry: 28, Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 14-17574 TODD S. GLASSEY AND MICHAEL E. MCNEIL, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants MICROSEMI
More informationNo In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT MICHIGAN BEER & WINE WHOLESALERS ASSOCIATON,
Ý»æ ïïóîðçé ܱ½«³»² æ ððêïïïëëèëçë Ú»¼æ ðïñïìñîðïí Ð ¹»æ ï No. 11-2097 In the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT AMERICAN BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, RICK SNYDER, Governor,
More informationUnited States District Court Central District of California
Case :-cv-0-odw-agr Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: O 0 United States District Court Central District of California ARLENE ROSENBLATT, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA and THE CITY COUNCIL OF
More information20 July Practice Group: Energy. By Ankur K. Tohan, Alyssa A. Moir, Gabrielle E. Thompson
20 July 2016 Practice Group: Energy Constitutional Limits to Greenhouse Gas Regulation: 8th Circuit Relies on the Dormant Commerce Clause to Reject Minnesota s GHG Limits on Imported Power By Ankur K.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 07-56424 08/24/2009 Page: 1 of 6 DktEntry: 7038488 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT M. NELSON, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 07-56424 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
More informationNos and UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 11-55461 12/22/2011 ID: 8009906 DktEntry: 32 Page: 1 of 16 Nos. 11-55460 and 11-55461 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PACIFIC SHORES PROPERTIES, LLC et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No John Teixeira; et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants,
Case: 13-17132 06/16/2014 ID: 9133029 DktEntry: 37-1 Page: 1 of 6 (1 of 7) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 13-17132 John Teixeira; et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. County of Alameda;
More informationA (800) (800)
No. 13-1313 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ASSOCIATION DES ÉLEVEURS DE CANARDS ET D OIES DU QUÉBEC, et al., V. Petitioners, KAMALA D. HARRIS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
More informationCase: /16/2014 ID: DktEntry: 37-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 9) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 12-15498 10/16/2014 ID: 9278435 DktEntry: 37-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 9) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED OCT 16 2014 RICHARD ENOS; et al., No. 12-15498
More informationNos and IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 06-56325 10/27/2009 Page: 1 of 15 DktEntry: 7109530 Nos. 06-56325 and 06-56406 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CLAUDE CASSIRER, Plaintiff/Appellee v. KINGDOM OF SPAIN,
More informationSTATE DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS RESPONSES TO AMICUS BRIEF OF UNITED STATES AND FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Nos. 17-2433, 17-2445 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH CIRCUIT VILLAGE OF OLD MILL CREEK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ANTHONY STAR, in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case: 12-16258, 09/13/2016, ID: 10122368, DktEntry: 102-1, Page 1 of 5 (1 of 23) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHRISTOPHER BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOUIS KEALOHA, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 02-56256 05/31/2013 ID: 8651138 DktEntry: 382 Page: 1 of 14 Appeal Nos. 02-56256, 02-56390 & 09-56381 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEXIS HOLYWEEK SAREI, ET AL., Plaintiffs
More informationCase: Document: 6 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pages: 6 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-3766 NAPERVILLE SMART METER AWARENESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NAPERVILLE, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-55900, 04/11/2017, ID: 10392099, DktEntry: 59, Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Appellee, v. No. 14-55900 GREAT PLAINS
More informationNo ASSOCIATION DES ÉLEVEURS DE CANARDS ET D OIES DU QUÉBEC, et al., Petitioners,
No. 13-1313 ASSOCIATION DES ÉLEVEURS DE CANARDS ET D OIES DU QUÉBEC, et al., v. Petitioners, KAMALA D. HARRIS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. On Petition For A
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 09-16942 09/22/2009 Page: 1 of 66 DktEntry: 7070869 No. 09-16942 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN INDIANS OF THE COLUSA INDIAN COMMUNITY, a federally
More informationJOHN TEIXEIRA, et al., Appellants, vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Appellees. Northern District of California REHEARING EN BANG
Case: 13-17132, 07/27/2016, ID: 10065825, DktEntry: 81, Page 1 of 26 Appellate Case No.: 13-17132 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN TEIXEIRA, et al., Appellants, vs. COUNTY
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 10-17720 06/07/2012 ID: 8205511 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 1 of 3 (1 of 8) FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 07 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 10-56971 01/03/2012 ID: 8018028 DktEntry: 78-1 Page: 1 of 14 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWARD PERUTA, et. al., No. 10-56971 Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02371-IEG-BGS
More informationFILED FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KRISTIN M. PERRY; SANDRA B. STIER; PAUL T. KATAMI; JEFFREY J.
FILED FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 05 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KRISTIN M. PERRY; SANDRA B. STIER; PAUL T. KATAMI; JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO,
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. MICHELLE FLANAGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Case: 18-55717, 09/21/2018, ID: 11020720, DktEntry: 12, Page 1 of 21 No. 18-55717 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHELLE FLANAGAN, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, V. XAVIER
More informationORAL ARGUMENT HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 27, No and Consolidated Cases
USCA Case #15-1363 Document #1669991 Filed: 04/06/2017 Page 1 of 10 ORAL ARGUMENT HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 No. 15-1363 and Consolidated Cases IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 11-16310 09/17/2012 ID: 8325958 DktEntry: 65-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 9) FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 17 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
More informationCase: , 01/02/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 43-1, Page 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-55470, 01/02/2018, ID: 10708808, DktEntry: 43-1, Page 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED JAN 02 2018 (1 of 14) MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-56657, 06/08/2016, ID: 10006069, DktEntry: 32-1, Page 1 of 11 (1 of 16) FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEBORAH A. LYONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICHAEL &
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APPELLEES RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS MOTION FOR INITIAL HEARING EN BANC
Appellate Case: 14-3246 Document: 01019343568 Date Filed: 11/19/2014 Page: 1 Kail Marie, et al., UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Case No. 14-3246 Robert Moser,
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 11-55436 03/20/2013 ID: 8558059 DktEntry: 47-1 Page: 1 of 5 FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
More informationCase 2:09-cv CAS-MAN Document 107 Filed 05/07/10 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:1464 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case 2:09-cv-07097-CAS-MAN Document 107 Filed 05/07/10 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:1464 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED MAY072010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS NATIONAL
More informationENVIRONMENTAL. Westlaw Journal. Expert Analysis A Review Of Legal Challenges To California s Greenhouse Gas Cap-And-Trade Regulations
Westlaw Journal ENVIRONMENTAL Litigation News and Analysis Legislation Regulation Expert Commentary VOLUME 33, ISSUE 18 / MARCH 27, 2013 Expert Analysis A Review Of Legal Challenges To California s Greenhouse
More informationCase: , 02/19/2016, ID: , DktEntry: 54-1, Page 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-57050, 02/19/2016, ID: 9870753, DktEntry: 54-1, Page 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED FEB 19 2016 (1 of 9) MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationNo United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case: 09-35860 10/14/2010 Page: 1 of 16 ID: 7508761 DktEntry: 41-1 No. 09-35860 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Kenneth Kirk, Carl Ekstrom, and Michael Miller, Plaintiffs-Appellants
More informationCase: , 07/31/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 60-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-56602, 07/31/2018, ID: 10960794, DktEntry: 60-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED JUL 31 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
More informationCase: , 07/03/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 12-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-56170, 07/03/2017, ID: 10495777, DktEntry: 12-1, Page 1 of 3 (1 of 8) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED JUL 3 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationCase: , 04/24/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 23-1, Page 1 of 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-15419, 04/24/2017, ID: 10408045, DktEntry: 23-1, Page 1 of 2 (1 of 7) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED APR 24 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationPlaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. Plaintiffs American Catalog Mailers Association ( ACMA ) and
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA ) ) SS COUNTY OF HUGHES ) IN CIRCUIT COURT SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT AMERICAN CATALOG MAILERS ASSOCIATION and NETCHOICE, _ vs. Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ANDY GERLACH,
More informationCase: , 08/27/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 126-1, Page 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-55565, 08/27/2018, ID: 10990110, DktEntry: 126-1, Page 1 of 4 (1 of 9) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED AUG 27 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationCase: , 04/17/2019, ID: , DktEntry: 37-1, Page 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 18-15054, 04/17/2019, ID: 11266832, DktEntry: 37-1, Page 1 of 7 (1 of 11) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED APR 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationCase: /07/2013 ID: DktEntry: 26 Page: 1 of 39
Case: 12-56067 03/07/2013 ID: 8541065 DktEntry: 26 Page: 1 of 39 Case Nos. 12-56067, 12-56068, 12-56077 (Consolidated) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ESTATE OF ROBERT GRAHAM, et al.,
More informationCase: , 02/14/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 73-1, Page 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-16480, 02/14/2017, ID: 10318773, DktEntry: 73-1, Page 1 of 6 (1 of 11) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED FEB 14 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationNo No CV LRS
Case: 10-35045 08/08/2011 ID: 7847254 DktEntry: 34 Page: 1 of 13 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit JOSEPH PAKOOTAS an individual and enrolled member of the Confederated Tribes
More informationCase: , 12/29/2014, ID: , DktEntry: 20-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-56778, 12/29/2014, ID: 9363202, DktEntry: 20-1, Page 1 of 3 FILED (1 of 8) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 29 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
More informationCase: , 07/23/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 39-1, Page 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-36048, 07/23/2018, ID: 10950972, DktEntry: 39-1, Page 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED JUL 23 2018 (1 of 11 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationNO UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-35209, 05/22/2015, ID: 9548395, DktEntry: 22, Page 1 of 18 NO.15-35209 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISE ASSOCIATION, INC.; CHARLES STEMPLER; KATHERINE
More informationNo UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. REBECCA FRIEDRICHS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
Case: 13-57095 07/01/2014 ID: 9153024 DktEntry: 17 Page: 1 of 8 No. 13-57095 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REBECCA FRIEDRICHS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA TEACHERS
More informationCase: , 03/16/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 46-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-56021, 03/16/2017, ID: 10358984, DktEntry: 46-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED MAR 16 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
More informationCase: , 09/19/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 40-1, Page 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-56799, 09/19/2017, ID: 10585776, DktEntry: 40-1, Page 1 of 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED SEP 19 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOTCONNECTAFRICA TRUST,
Case: 16-55693, 05/18/2016, ID: 9981617, DktEntry: 5, Page 1 of 6 No. 16-55693 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOTCONNECTAFRICA TRUST, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, INTERNET CORPORATION
More informationNo (and consolidated cases) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
USCA Case #15-1381 Document #1675253 Filed: 05/15/2017 Page 1 of 14 ORAL ARGUMENT REMOVED FROM CALENDAR No. 15-1381 (and consolidated cases) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-4159 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (a.k.a. OOIDA ) AND SCOTT MITCHELL, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. CLEAN AIR COUNCIL, et al.,
USCA Case #17-1145 Document #1683079 Filed: 07/07/2017 Page 1 of 15 NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT No. 17-1145 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CLEAN AIR
More informationCase: /20/2014 ID: DktEntry: 56-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 13) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 12-16258 03/20/2014 ID: 9023773 DktEntry: 56-1 Page: 1 of 4 (1 of 13) FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROCKY MOUNTAIN FARMERS UNION; REDWOOD COUNTY MINNESOTA CORN AND SOYBEAN GROWERS; PENNY NEWMAN GRAIN, INC.; REX NEDEREND; FRESNO COUNTY
More informationTO BE FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
TO BE FILED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL APP-006 COURT OF APPEAL Second APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION Eight COURT OF APPEAL CASE NUMBER: B258027 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY: NAME: FIRM NAME: CITY: Mary
More informationAppeal Nos , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT APPLE INC., MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
Case: 13-1150 Document: 75 Page: 1 Filed: 01/06/2014 Appeal Nos. 2013-1150, -1182 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT APPLE INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No
Case: 10-56971 07/10/2012 ID: 8244725 DktEntry: 91 Page: 1 of 22 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWARD PERUTA, et. al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 10-56971 D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02371-IEG-BGS
More informationCase No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., and WILDTANGENT, INC.
Case No. 2010-1544 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, HULU, LLC, Defendant, and WILDTANGENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
More informationORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO
USCA Case #17-1014 Document #1668929 Filed: 03/31/2017 Page 1 of 6 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN NO. 17-1014 ORAL ARGUMENT HELD SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 IN NO. 15-1363 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
More informationCase: , 10/18/2016, ID: , DktEntry: 57-1, Page 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-56454, 10/18/2016, ID: 10163305, DktEntry: 57-1, Page 1 of 4 (1 of 9) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED OCT 18 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationNos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-55693, 11/07/2016, ID: 10189498, DktEntry: 56, Page 1 of 9 Nos. 16-55693, 16-55894 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOTCONNECTAFRICA TRUST, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. INTERNET
More informationCASE NO UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-35967, 02/12/2016, ID: 9864857, DktEntry: 27, Page 1 of 14 CASE NO. 15-35967 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAVALLI COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE, GALLATIN COUNTY REPUBLICAN
More informationCase: , 03/23/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 38-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-15218, 03/23/2017, ID: 10368491, DktEntry: 38-1, Page 1 of 3 (1 of 8) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED MAR 23 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationSTATE OF INDIANA ) IN MARION SUPERIOR COURT 1 COMMERCIAL COURT DOCKET COUNTY OF MARION ) CAUSE NO. 49D PL
STATE OF INDIANA ) IN MARION SUPERIOR COURT 1 )SS: COMMERCIAL COURT DOCKET COUNTY OF MARION ) CAUSE NO. 49D01-1706-PL-025964 AMERICAN CATALOG MAILERS ) ASSOCIATION and NETCHOICE, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v.
More informationAppeal No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN ELLINS, Plaintiff/ Appellant,
' Case: 11-55213 04/12/2013 ID: 8588975 DktEntry: 37-1 Page: 1 of 12 Appeal No. 11-55213 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN ELLINS, Plaintiff/ Appellant, v. CITY OF SIERRA MADRE,
More informationCase No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Case No. 02-1432 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT DONALD H. BESKIND; KAREN BLUESTEIN; MICHAEL D. CASPER, SR.; MICHAEL Q. MURRAY; D. SCOTT TURNER; MICHAEL J. WENIG; MARY A. WENIG; and
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT AND PORT JEFFERSON STEAMBOAT COMPANY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 3:03 CV 599 (CFD) - against - BRIDGEPORT PORT AUTHORITY, July 13, 2010
More informationHAROLD P. STURGEON, Plaintiff and Petitioner, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants and Respondents, and
S190318 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAROLD P. STURGEON, Plaintiff and Petitioner, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants and Respondents, and SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. JOHN C. GORMAN, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, LLP, Defendant,
Case: 06-17226 03/10/2009 Page: 1 of 5 DktEntry: 6839130 No. 06-17226 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN C. GORMAN, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, LLP, Defendant,
More informationAPPELLEE S RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
NO. 11-10194 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT KEITH A. LEPAK, MARVIN RANDLE, DAN CLEMENTS, DANA BAILEY, KENSLEY STEWART, CRYSTAL MAIN, DAVID TATE, VICKI TATE, MORGAN McCOMB,
More informationPlainSite. Legal Document. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case No Nutrivita Laboratories, Inc. v. VBS Distribution, Inc.
PlainSite Legal Document Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case No. 16-55329 Nutrivita Laboratories, Inc. v. VBS Distribution, Inc., et al Document 34 View Document View Docket A joint project of
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case: 09-56786 12/18/2012 ID: 8443743 DktEntry: 101 Page: 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROSALINA CUELLAR DE OSORIO; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS;
More informationFOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. ALLCO FINANCE LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant,
15-20 To Be Argued By: ROBERT D. SNOOK Assistant Attorney General IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ALLCO FINANCE LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROBERT J. KLEE, in his Official
More informationDocket No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Docket No. 07-35821 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT INTERSCOPE RECORDS, a California general partnership; CAPITAL RECORDS, INC., a Delaware corporation; SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT,
More informationCase: , 08/14/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 46-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-35945, 08/14/2017, ID: 10542764, DktEntry: 46-1, Page 1 of 3 (1 of 8) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED AUG 14 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
Rel: January 11, 2019 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 07-56424 06/08/2009 Page: 1 of 7 DktEntry: 6949062 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT M. NELSON, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 07-56424 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS
More informationCase: , 12/15/2015, ID: , DktEntry: 51-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-17247, 12/15/2015, ID: 9792198, DktEntry: 51-1, Page 1 of 3 (1 of 8) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED DEC 15 2015 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 10-179 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States -------------------------------- --------------------------------- HOWARD K. STERN,
More informationCase: , 01/08/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 55-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 15-56867, 01/08/2018, ID: 10715815, DktEntry: 55-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED JAN 08 2018 (1 of 12) MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationCase: , 05/19/2016, ID: , DktEntry: 33-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-16051, 05/19/2016, ID: 9982763, DktEntry: 33-1, Page 1 of 3 (1 of 8) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED MAY 19 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs - Appellants, Defendants - Appellees.
Case: 09-16852 08/23/2012 ID: 8297074 DktEntry: 44-1 Page: 1 of 8 (1 of 9) 09-16852 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMES ROTHERY and ANDREA HOFFMAN, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,
More informationIn the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Case: 11-50814 Document: 00511723798 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/12/2012 No. 11-50814 In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit TEXAS MEDICAL PROVIDERS PERFORMING ABORTION SERVICES, doing
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER AND HOLD CASES IN ABEYANCE
Case: 17-72260, 10/02/2017, ID: 10601894, DktEntry: 19, Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAFER CHEMICALS HEALTHY FAMILIES, ET AL., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOTION OF AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
Case: 18-70506, 03/16/2018, ID: 10802297, DktEntry: 33, Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT County of Santa Clara and Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District,
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LUMMI NATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS SAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL.
No. 05-445 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LUMMI NATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SAMISH INDIAN TRIBE, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationCA Nos UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CA Nos. 12-35946 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SETH BAKER, JESSE BERNSTEIN, MATTHEW DANZIG, JAMES JARRETT, NATHAN MARLOW, and MARK RISK, individually and on behalf of all others
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-51063 Document: 00514380489 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF
More informationAppeal No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Bradley Berentson, et al. Brian Perryman,
Case: 16-56307, 06/30/2017, ID: 10495042, DktEntry: 36-1, Page 1 of 9 Appeal No. 16-56307 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Bradley Berentson, et al. Brian Perryman, v. Provide
More informationCase 3:13-cv SC Document 39 Filed 01/09/14 Page 1 of 5
Case :-cv-0-sc Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Ben F. Pierce Gore (SBN ) PRATT & ASSOCIATES The Alameda, Suite San Jose, CA Telephone: (0) -0 Fax: (0) -0 pgore@prattattorneys.com David P. Wilson (admitted
More informationCase: , 04/25/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 61-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 17-15078, 04/25/2018, ID: 10849962, DktEntry: 61-1, Page 1 of 5 (1 of 10) NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED APR 25 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT
More informationBEFORE THE TENNESSEE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION ) ) ) ) NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING PETITION FOR DECLARATORY ORDER
BEFORE THE TENNESSEE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION IN RE: DIAGEO AMERICAS SUPPLY, INC. d/b/a GEORGE A. DICKEL, & CO. Petitioner. Docket# 33.03-135867A NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING PETITION FOR DECLARATORY
More information