Breaking News

Masimo Corp. v. Ruhe

Petition for certiorari denied on October 3, 2016
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
15-1408 9th Cir. N/A N/A N/A N/A OT 16

Issue: (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit properly concluded—in conflict with the decisions of other courts—that an arbitrator's refusal to refer a disqualification motion to a neutral decision maker, reliance on a party's disqualification motion as basis for imposing punitive damages, or other circumstances like those presented here, where the arbitrator's brother had served as lead counsel to petitioner's chief competitor in recent litigation against petitioner, does not establish “evident partiality” justifying vacatur of the award; and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit properly held—in conflict with the decisions of other courts—that an appellee waives an argument pressed in, but not passed on by, the district court by not advancing it as an alternative ground for affirming the judgment below.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
May 18 2016Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 20, 2016)
May 20 2016Waiver of right of respondents Michael Ruhe and Vicente Catala to respond filed.
May 31 2016DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 16, 2016.
Jun 3 2016Response Requested . (Due July 5, 2016)
Jun 29 2016Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 11, 2016.
Jul 5 2016Brief amicus curiae of Medical Device Manufacturers Association filed.
Aug 11 2016Brief of respondents Michael Ruhe and Vicente Catala in opposition filed.
Aug 30 2016Reply of petitioner Masimo Corporation filed.
Aug 31 2016DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016.
Sep 13 2016Letter received from counsel for amicus curiae, Medical Device Manufacturers' Association. (Distributed)
Oct 3 2016Petition DENIED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.