|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-1437||Cal. Ct. App.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2019|
Issues: (1) Whether the arbitration-specific requirements and rules set forth in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services Inc. are pre-empted by the Federal Arbitration Act; and (2) whether the arbitration-only severability rule that when an arbitration provision has more than one invalid term, the whole provision is presumptively invalid, is pre-empted by the FAA.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|May 14 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 17, 2019)|
|Jun 04 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 17, 2019 to July 17, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jun 07 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 17, 2019.|
|Jun 10 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Winston & Strawn LLP.|
|Jun 11 2019||Letter of consent to the filing of amicus briefs from respondents Constance Ramos, et al.|
|Jun 12 2019||Letter of consent to the filing of amicus briefs from respondent Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco .|
|Jun 14 2019||Brief amicus curiae of DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar filed.|
|Jun 17 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.|
|Jun 17 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Center for Workplace Compliance filed.|
|Jun 17 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Ropes & Gray LLP filed.|
|Jun 17 2019||Brief amici curiae of Civil Justice Association of California, et al. filed.|
|Jun 17 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Atlantuc Legal Foundation filed.|
|Jul 16 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 17, 2019 to July 31, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jul 16 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including July 31, 2019.|
|Jul 31 2019||Brief of respondents Constance Ramos, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Aug 13 2019||Reply of petitioner Winston & Strawn LLP filed.|
|Aug 14 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.|
|Oct 07 2019||Petition DENIED.|
Today at SCOTUS: Can the federal government prioritize certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for deportation over others? And do states have standing to sue the government if they disagree with those priorities? @AHoweBlogger previews U.S. v. Texas: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/11/in-u-s-v-texas-broad-questions-over-immigration-enforcement-and-states-ability-to-challenge-federal-policies/
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral arguments in a pair of public-corruption cases, both stemming from scandals in New York politics that arose during Andrew Cuomo's time as governor. In both cases, the defendants are claiming prosecutorial overreach.
Cecilia (Cissy) Suyat Marshall, the widow of Thurgood Marshall, died this morning at 94. Here is the court's announcement.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court REJECTS Trump's bid to prevent the House Ways & Means Committee from obtaining his tax returns. No noted dissents.
The brief order may end years of litigation over the committee's efforts to review the tax records of Trump and his businesses.
JUST IN: Whisky, dog toys... and trademark law.
SCOTUS has agreed to hear a dispute between Jack Daniel's and a company that makes squeaking "Bad Spaniels" dog toys. The case will have implications for the tension between parody & intellectual property. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112122zr_e1p3.pdf
In a quiet Monday morning order list, SCOTUS adds no new cases to its docket. The court will not hear Brooks v. Abbott, a challenge to an alleged racial gerrymander of a state senate district in Texas. Here's the full order list: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112122zor_7lhn.pdf