Courthouse News Service v. Michael Planet

Filing 55

Filed (ECF) Appellant Courthouse News Service citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 01/02/2014. [8923063] (RRM)

Download PDF
Roger Myers Direct: 415-268-1955 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 Fax 14151268·1999 Bryan Cave Offices Re: 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 Atlanta Boulder Ch arlotte Chicago Colorado Springs Dallas Dear Ms. Dwyer: Denver Frankfurt 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). th 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. Hamburg Hong Kong Irvine Jefferson City Kansas City London Los Angeles New York Paris Phoenix San Francisco 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. Shanghai Singapore St. Louis Washington, DC 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. Bryan Cave International Consulting 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 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. Jakarta A TRADE AND CUSTOMS CONSULTANCY Bangkok Beijing HROSAF\8486\.\ Kuala Lumpur Manila Shanghai Singapore Tokyo Molly Dwyer, Clerk January 2,2014 Page 2 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, Roger Myers cc: Robert A. Naeve, Esq. Counsel for Appellee Michael Planet HROSAF\84861.1

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?