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)

Roger Myers
Direct: 415-268-1955
[e-mail]

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 [phone]·2000
Fax [phone]·1999
www.bryancave.com

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 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.

Jakarta

A TRADE AND CUSTOMS CONSULTANCY

www.bryancaveconsulting.com
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