Courthouse News Service v. Michael Planet
Filed (ECF) Appellant Courthouse News Service citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 01/02/2014.  (RRM)
January 2, 2014
Bryan Cave LLP
560 Mission Street. 25th Floor
Molly Dwyer, Clerk
United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit
The James R Browning Courthouse
95 7 th Street
San Francisco, CA 94119-3939
San Francisco. CA 94105·2994
Tel 14151 268·2000
Bryan Cave Offices
Cou11house News Service v. Michael Planet, Case No. CVll-57187
Argued & Submitted May 8, 2013
Submission Vacated on Referral to Mediation May 13, 2013
Returned from Mediation to Panel June 3,2013
Panel: Circuit Judges Noonan, Wardlaw & Murguia
Dear Ms. Dwyer:
We write on behalf of Appellant Courthouse News Service to respond to Appellee's
citation of supplemental authority in his response to our Rule 280) letter concerning
Sprint Commttnications v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584, 187 L. Ed. 2d 505 (2013).
In his response, Appellee cited Vasquez v. Rackauckas, 734 F.3d 1025 (9 Cir. 2013).
It is curious Appellee cited this decision, since it rejected the assertion "that the
district court should have abstained from hearing Plaintiffs' case under more general
principles of comity, equity, and federalism, unmoored from any particular abstention
doctrine heretofore endorsed by the Supreme Court or our court." Id. at 1036.
This is significant because it is exactly what Appellee is attempting to do here - i.e.,
unmoor his theory of "equitable abstention" from the 0 'Shea branch of Younger
abstention to avoid the limitations on Younger abstention imposed in Sprint.
Although Vasquez did not decide whether appellate authority could ever be cobbled
together to "state the contours of an abstention doctrine that a district court might
follow," id. at 1037, Sprint made clear abstention is allowed only within the "'narrow
limits'" the Supreme Court itself has "recognized." 187 L. Ed. 2d at 510, 513.
That is one reason why Appellee's citation to footnote 8 in Vasquez is unavailing.
Even if it could be read to suggest abstention might be allowed if an injunction is
sought against "state court administrators," Sprint subsequently explained abstention
is barred where, as here, enjoining a state court cle.tk would not "interfer[e] with ...
'civil proceedings involving certain orders ... uniquely in furtherance of the state
courts' ability to perform their judicial functions ." 187 L. Ed. 2d at 513.
A TRADE AND CUSTOMS CONSULTANCY
Molly Dwyer, Clerk
Bryan Cave LLP
Moreover, footnote 8 cannot be read as Appellee infers. Indeed, the case it cites - E. T. v. CantilSakatfYe, 682 F.3d 1121 (9 th Cit. 2011) - anticipated the limitations imposed in Sprint by distinguishing
LA. Counry Bar Ass'n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697 (9 th Cit. 1992), on the ground that, unlike Eu, the injunction
sought by E. T. could interfere with "a substantial number of individual cases." 682 F.3d at 1124.
Very truly yours,
cc: Robert A. Naeve, Esq.
Counsel for Appellee Michael Planet
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?