This Week At The Ninth: Deceptive Financial Advisory Services and Religious Speech
Welcome to Left Coast Appeals
At Left Coast Appeals, we provide insights into all things Ninth Circuit. Check out our Ninth Circuit Statistics page, which offers an empirical window into the Court’s workings. At our En Banc Tracker, we monitor the Court’s busy en banc proceedings. And at This Week at the Ninth, we highlight key recent decisions.
Follow us on Twitter @LeftCoastAppeal. And check out our sister blog Federal Circuitry, which takes a data-driven look at the Federal Circuit.
- This week, the Court addresses the definition of “financial advisory services” under the Consumer Financial Protection Act and whether a plaintiff’s allegations of First Amendment violations plausibly stated a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU V. ARIA The... ›
Supreme Court To Settle Longstanding Split Over Stays Pending Arbitration Appeals
By: Joseph R. Palmore
The Supreme Court just agreed to review an important question at the intersection of arbitration law and appellate practice. Its ultimate decision in the case could provide a major boost to defendants seeking to enforce arbitration agreements in circuits (including the Second and Ninth) where... ›This Week At The Ninth: Abstention and the Golden Globes
By: Joel F. Wacks and Alexandra Avvocato
This week, the Court addresses the application of abstention doctrine to federal takings litigation and whether the Hollywood Foreign Press Association’s membership policies violate antitrust law. THOMAS GEARING ET AL. V. CITY OF HALF MOON BAY The Court holds that Knick v. Township of... ›This Week At The Ninth: Retroactivity and Recalls
By: Lena H. Hughes
This week, the Court addresses the retroactive effect of a preemption decision by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and the constitutionality of California’s prohibition on an incumbent appearing on the ballot to succeed himself in a recall election. VALIENTE V. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO.... ›This Week at the Ninth: Trademarks and Service
By: James R. Sigel
This week, the Ninth Circuit digs into the Lanham Act, addressing what happens when two businesses have a similar name and interpreting the statute’s provision for serving foreign registrants. PUNCHBOWL, INC. v. AJ PRESS, LLC The Court rejects a Lanham Act challenge to an... ›This Week at the Ninth: The Tax Injunction Act
This week, the Ninth Circuit considers whether the Tax Injunction Act bars online merchants from asking a federal court to enjoin California’s sales tax scheme requiring them to obtain seller’s permits. ONLINE MERCHANTS GUILD V. NICOLAS MADUROS The Court holds that the Tax Injunction... ›This Week At The Ninth: Declaratory Judgments and Pension Plans
By: James R. Sigel and Lena H. Hughes
This week, the Court explains the limits of the Declaratory Judgment Act and employers’ liability for withdrawal from multiemployer pension plans. CITY OF RENO v. NETFLIX The Court holds that the Declaratory Judgment Act does not authorize a plaintiff to obtain affirmative relief when... ›This Week at the Ninth: Compensable Time and ADA Fees
By: James R. Sigel
This week, the Court explores whether time booting up a computer is compensable under federal labor law and addresses district courts’ discretion to adjust fees for serial American With Disabilities Act litigants. CADENA v. CUSTOMER CONNEXX LLC The Court holds that time spent booting... ›This Week At The Ninth: Robocalls and Retaliation
By: James R. Sigel and Lena H. Hughes
This week, the Court addresses the constitutionality of a nearly $1 billion statutory damages award under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and revives a California state law whistleblower claim. WAKEFIELD v. VISALUS, INC. The Court holds a defendant waived reliance on the FCC’s... ›This Week at the Ninth: Is This Speech?
By: Lena H. Hughes
This week, the Ninth Circuit grapples with a challenge to California’s law for classifying workers as a content-based regulation of speech. MOBILIZE THE MESSAGE, LLC ET AL. V. ROB BONTA The Court holds that plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge to California’s differential treatment of doorknockers... ›