Masimo Corp. v. Ruhe
Petition for certiorari denied on October 3, 2016
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
- Petition of the day (Kate Howard, July 12, 2016)
Date | Proceedings and Orders |
---|---|
05/18/2016 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 20, 2016) |
05/20/2016 | Waiver of right of respondents Michael Ruhe and Vicente Catala to respond filed. |
05/31/2016 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 16, 2016. |
06/03/2016 | Response Requested . (Due July 5, 2016) |
06/29/2016 | Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 11, 2016. |
07/05/2016 | Brief amicus curiae of Medical Device Manufacturers Association filed. |
08/11/2016 | Brief of respondents Michael Ruhe and Vicente Catala in opposition filed. |
08/30/2016 | Reply of petitioner Masimo Corporation filed. |
08/31/2016 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016. |
09/13/2016 | Letter received from counsel for amicus curiae, Medical Device Manufacturers' Association. (Distributed) |
10/03/2016 | Petition DENIED. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. |