DOCSLIB.ORG

* This Document Is a Case Summary Compilation of Select Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) Decisions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
* This Document Is a Case Summary Compilation of Select Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) Decisions * This document is a case summary compilation of select Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) decisions as they were reported on Westlaw between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016. Nothing in this document constitutes legal advice. Case summaries prepared by Michelle L. Roberts, Partner, Roberts Bartolic LLP, 1050 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 105, Alameda, CA 94501. © Roberts Bartolic LLP I. Attorneys’ Fees .................................................................................................................... 9 A. First Circuit ........................................................................................................................................ 9 B. Second Circuit ................................................................................................................................... 9 C. Third Circuit ..................................................................................................................................... 12 D. Fourth Circuit .................................................................................................................................. 12 E. Fifth Circuit ...................................................................................................................................... 13 F. Sixth Circuit ..................................................................................................................................... 14 G. Seventh Circuit ................................................................................................................................ 15 H. Eighth Circuit ................................................................................................................................... 17 I. Ninth Circuit .................................................................................................................................... 18 J. Tenth Circuit .................................................................................................................................... 22 K. Eleventh Circuit ............................................................................................................................... 22 II. Breach of Fiduciary Duty................................................................................................... 22 A. U.S. Supreme Court ......................................................................................................................... 22 B. First Circuit ...................................................................................................................................... 23 C. Second Circuit ................................................................................................................................. 24 D. Third Circuit ..................................................................................................................................... 29 E. Fourth Circuit .................................................................................................................................. 32 F. Fifth Circuit ...................................................................................................................................... 35 G. Sixth Circuit ..................................................................................................................................... 36 H. Seventh Circuit ................................................................................................................................ 38 I. Eighth Circuit ................................................................................................................................... 40 J. Ninth Circuit .................................................................................................................................... 41 K. Tenth Circuit .................................................................................................................................... 44 L. Eleventh Circuit ............................................................................................................................... 45 M. D.C. Circuit................................................................................................................................... 46 III. Church Plan Status ............................................................................................................. 47 A. Seventh Circuit ................................................................................................................................ 47 IV. Class Certification .............................................................................................................. 48 A. Ninth Circuit .................................................................................................................................... 48 1 V. Class Action Settlements ................................................................................................... 48 A. Second Circuit ................................................................................................................................. 48 B. Third Circuit ..................................................................................................................................... 49 C. Fourth Circuit .................................................................................................................................. 49 D. Fifth Circuit ...................................................................................................................................... 50 E. Sixth Circuit ..................................................................................................................................... 50 F. Seventh Circuit ................................................................................................................................ 51 G. Ninth Circuit .................................................................................................................................... 52 H. Eleventh Circuit ............................................................................................................................... 53 VI. Disability Benefit Claims ................................................................................................... 54 A. First Circuit ...................................................................................................................................... 54 B. Second Circuit ................................................................................................................................. 56 C. Third Circuit ..................................................................................................................................... 59 D. Fourth Circuit .................................................................................................................................. 64 E. Fifth Circuit ...................................................................................................................................... 66 F. Sixth Circuit ..................................................................................................................................... 68 G. Seventh Circuit ................................................................................................................................ 84 H. Eighth Circuit ................................................................................................................................... 89 I. Ninth Circuit .................................................................................................................................... 93 J. Tenth Circuit .................................................................................................................................. 110 K. Eleventh Circuit ............................................................................................................................. 112 L. D.C. Circuit..................................................................................................................................... 116 VII. Discovery ......................................................................................................................... 117 A. First Circuit .................................................................................................................................... 117 B. Second Circuit ............................................................................................................................... 118 C. Third Circuit ................................................................................................................................... 120 D. Fourth Circuit ................................................................................................................................ 120 E. Fifth Circuit .................................................................................................................................... 121 F. Sixth Circuit ................................................................................................................................... 122 G. Seventh Circuit .............................................................................................................................. 128 H. Eighth Circuit ................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS City College
    College of Music.........................................................Edward J. Kvet, D.M.E., Dean Associate Dean...................................................................Anthony DeCuir, Ph.D. UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATORS City College................................................................Marcel Dumestre, Ed.D., Dean Associate Dean................................................................Richard A. Lucore, Ed.D. Loyola Institute for Ministry ..................................Mark Markuly, Ph.D., Director BOARD OF TRUSTEES 2003 – 2004 School of Law ..........................................................Brian Bromberger, LL.M., Dean Chair .......................................................................................Donna D. Fraiche, L’75 Associate Dean of Academic Affairs......................Lawrence W. Moore, S.J., J.D. Vice Chair.......................................................................Jerome J. Reso, Jr., B’58, L’61 Associate Dean of Students.........................Stephanie W. Jumonville, M.Ed., J.D. President ...................................................................Rev. Bernard P. Knoth, S.J., Ph.D. Assistant Dean of Admissions................................K. Michele Allison-Davis, J.D. Secretary and Treasurer......................................Rev. Lawrence W. Moore, S.J., LL.M. University Library.....................................Mary Lee Sweat, M.S.L.S., M.B.A., Dean Admissions and Enrollment Management.....................Deborah Stieffel, M.S., Dean B.A. “Red” Adams,
    [Show full text]
  • 15-3356 Document: 003112354089 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2016
    Case: 15-3356 Document: 003112354089 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2016 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _____________ No. 15-3356 _____________ NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF MULTIJURISDICTION PRACTICE, (NAAMJP); ROBERT VEREB; BENJAMIN JOSEF DOSCHER, Appellants v. JEROME B. SIMANDLE, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; MARY L. COOPER; JOEL A. PISANO; PETER G. SHERIDAN; MICHAEL SHIPP; ANNE E. THOMPSON; FREDA L. WOLFSON; RENEE MARIE BUMB; NOEL L. HILLMAN; JOSEPH E. IRENAS; ROBERT B. KUGLER; JOSEPH H. RODRIGUEZ; KAREN M. WILLIAMS; DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH; CLAIRE C. CECCHI; STANLEY R. CHESLER; DICKINSON R. DEBEVOISE; MICHAEL A. HAMMER; KATHARINE S. HAYDEN; FAITH S. HOCHBERG; JOSE L. LINARES; WILLIAM J. MARTINI; KEVIN MCNULTY; ESTHER SALAS; WILLIAM H. WALLS; SUSAN D. WIGENTON; ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA _______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 1-14-cv-3678) District Judge: Hon. Gerald A. McHugh _______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) July 11, 2016 Before: SMITH, JORDAN, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: July 14, 2016) Case: 15-3356 Document: 003112354089 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2016 _______________ OPINION _______________ JORDAN, Circuit Judge. By its own description, the National Association for the Advancement of Multijurisdiction Practice (“NAAMJP”) advocates “throughout the United States for the purpose of improving the legal profession, by petitioning for admission on motion in the dwindling minority of jurisdictions that have not yet adopted … reciprocal admission for all lawyers.” (JA164.) In other words, the NAAMJP endeavors to reduce the barriers to entry to legal practice in the various state and federal courts across the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement
    Case 8:18-cv-01298-PA-MRW Document 15 Filed 08/21/18 Page 1 of 35 Page ID #:66 1 BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW BRYAN J. SCHWARTZ (SBN 209903) 2 RACHEL M. TERP (SBN 290666) 3 DECAROL A. DAVIS (SBN 316849) 1330 Broadway, Suite 1630 4 Oakland, California 94612 5 Tel: (510) 444-9300 Fax: (510) 444-9301 6 Email: [email protected] 7 [email protected] [email protected] 8 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed FLSA Collective and California Class 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 Luis Duque and Daniel Thibodeau, Case No.: 8:18-cv-01298-PA-MRW 15 individually, on behalf of others similarly PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF 16 situated, and on behalf of the general MOTION AND UNOPPOSED public, MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 17 APPROVAL OF CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION 18 Plaintiffs, SETTLEMENT 19 vs. Date: October 15, 2018 Time: 1:30 p.m. 20 Bank of America, National Association, Place: Courtroom 9A 21 and DOES 1-50, Hon. Percy Anderson 22 Defendant. 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION & UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS & COLLECTIVE ACTION SETTLEMENT; Case No. 8:18-cv-01298-PA-MRW Case 8:18-cv-01298-PA-MRW Document 15 Filed 08/21/18 Page 2 of 35 Page ID #:67 1 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION TO THE COURT AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a hearing will be held on Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion 3 for Preliminary Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement on October 15, 2018 at 4 1:30 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • March 3, 2015 Spring OCI 2015 Bidding
    Having trouble viewing this email?Click here March 3, 2015 Spring OCI 2015 Bidding Deadlines by Session The Spring On-Campus Interview Program (OCI) has two components: on-campus interviews and resume collections. OCI offers public interest organizations, government agencies, and law firms an opportunity to interview first and second year students for summer positions and third year students for post-graduate positions. Further details about Spring OCI have been sent to you in a separate email. Alumni Directory RESUME COLLECTIONS: Professor Leticia Saucedo, UC Davis School of Law Job Search Resources Session: Spring 2015 (Research Assistant Resume Collection) Bidding Deadline: March 20 at 11:00pm Class Level: 1L, 2L Symplicity Session: Spring 2015 (San Bernardino Public Defender - Post Grad) Career News Archives Bidding Deadline: April 1 at 11pm Archive of Recorded For questions pertaining to the OCI process please contact Kim Thomas at [email protected]. CSO Presentations Walk-In Hours: Ms. JD 7th Annual Conference on Women in the 11 AM - Noon & 4 - 5 PM, Monday - Thursday; Law: Stronger Together 11 AM - 1 PM, Friday 3Ls: 12 PM - 1 PM, Tuesday - The conference is this week, Thursday March 5 thought Friday March Thursday (with Lisa Carlock); 6, 2015 at UC Hastings College of the Law. Register here. 12 PM -1 PM, Monday and Friday (with Marian Lee). Thursday, March 5th 3Ls may also access general Second Annual Ms. JD Honors Award Reception will walk-ins. recognize women who have demonstrated passion for their careers and shared that passion with other men and women. At this Need more than a few ceremony, Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Frank V. Walker, No. 14-2058 and LULAC of Wisconsin V. Deininger
    In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 14-2058 & 14-2059 RUTHELLE FRANK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SCOTT WALKER, Governor of Wisconsin, et al., Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC) OF WISCONSIN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DAVID G. DEININGER, Member, Government Accountability Board, et al., Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeals froM the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Nos. 11-CV-01128 & 12-CV-00185 — Lynn Adelman, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED SEPTEMBER 12, 2014 — DECIDED OCTOBER 6, 2014 ____________________ 2 Nos. 14-2058 & 14-2059 Before EASTERBROOK,SYKES, and TINDER, Circuit Judges. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Since 2005 Indiana has re- quired voters to present photographic identification at the polls. The Supreme Court held that this statute is compatible with the Constitution. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008). In May 2011 Wisconsin enacted a similar statute, 2011 Wis. Act 23. A district court held that Act 23 is unconstitutional and enjoined its implementation. Frank v. Walker, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59344 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 29, 2014), stay denied, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111811 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 13, 2014). After receiving briefs and argument, we stayed that injunction. Order issued Sept. 12, 2014; reconsid- eration denied Sept. 26, 2014; opinions issued Sept. 30, 2014. We now reverse the injunction, because the district court’s findings do not justify an outcome different from Crawford. The Justices observed that a commission chaired by for- mer President Carter had recommended the use of photo ID to verify a person’s entitlement to vote.
    [Show full text]
  • Settlement Agreement Is Entered Into by Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and 3 the Class Members, and Defendant Reckitt Benckiser, LLC
    Case 3:17-cv-03529-VC Document 221-2 Filed 05/12/21 Page 2 of 141 1 BLOOD HURST & O’REARDON, LLP TIMOTHY G. BLOOD (149343) 2 THOMAS J. O’REARDON II (247952) 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 3 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: 619/338-1100 4 619/338-1101 (fax) [email protected] 5 [email protected] 6 Class Counsel 7 [Additional Counsel Appear on Signature Page] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 10 GORDON NOBORU YAMAGATA and Case No. 3:17-cv-03529-VC STAMATIS F. PELARDIS, individually and 11 on behalf of all others similarly situated, STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT 12 Plaintiffs, LLP CLASS ACTION , 13 v. 14 RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, District Judge Vince Chhabria EARDON Courtroom 4, 17th Floor 15 Defendant. O’ R Complaint Filed: June 19, 2017 & 16 Trial Date: N/A URST 17 H 18 LOOD LOOD B 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 3:17-cv-03529-VC 00177902 STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT Case 3:17-cv-03529-VC Document 221-2 Filed 05/12/21 Page 3 of 141 1 TABLE OF EXHIBITS 2 Document Exhibit Number 3 Preliminary Approval Order ................................................................................................. 1 4 Final Approval Order ............................................................................................................ 2 5 Final Judgment ..................................................................................................................... 3 6 Class Notice Program ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS (Civil Cases)
    PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS (Civil Cases) Prepared by the Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions District Judges Association Fifth Circuit 2014 with revisions through October 2016 For Customer Assistance Call 1-800-328-4880 Mat #41663410 COMMITTEE ON PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS DISTRICT JUDGES ASSOCIATION FIFTH CIRCUIT Judge Daniel P. Jordan III, Chairman Judge Ron Clark Judge Elizabeth Erny Foote Judge Melinda Harmon Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon Judge Michael P. Mills Judge Sul Ozerden Judge Sarah Vance Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr. Judge Lee H. Rosenthal iii FOREWORD In July 2011, the Fifth Circuit District Judges Associa- tion formed the Pattern Jury Instruction Committee (Civil) including Judges Lee Rosenthal, Ron Clark, Elizabeth Foote, Sul Ozerden, Michael P. Mills, Stanwood Duval, Mary Ann Lemmon, Sarah Vance, Melinda Harmon and Dan Jordan. The Committee was charged with reviewing the existing pattern instructions and updating them where necessary. After an initial review, the Committee determined that the time had come for a top-to-bottom examination for substantive accuracy. While many of the existing instruc- tions remained valid, a significant number no longer reflected current law. This is no reflection on prior commit- tees, which did an excellent job drafting prior patterns. The law is not stagnant; it was time to update. Accordingly, the 2014 edition of the Fifth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Civil) will represent a substantial overhaul. The Committee approached this project with a consistent mantra: present instructions that are as balanced, accurate, and user friendly as possible. Given the breadth of that undertaking, outside assistance was essential. And in the end, nearly one hundred judges, attorneys, law professors, and law students helped draft, vet, edit, and proofread the final product.
    [Show full text]
  • Career News Archives Interview Location: King Hall
    May 3, 2016 Fall OCI for Class of 2018 Below is a calendar with several of the upcoming important dates -- -please mark your calendars accordingly. The OCI and Resume Collection sessions are as follows: OCI Sessions: August 1-5 & 8-9** Interview Location: UC Davis Hyatt Place Hotel (Aug 1-5) Interview Location: King Hall (Aug 8-9) Alumni Directory August 15 Interview Location: King Hall Job Search Resources August 29 - September 2 Interview Location: King Hall Symplicity September 6-9 Career News Archives Interview Location: King Hall Off-Campus Session: Archive of Recorded August 4** CSO Presentations Interview Location: Sofitel Hotel in Redwood City Resume Collection Sessions: Walk-In Hours: July Resume Collection August Resume Collection 11 AM - Noon & 4 - 5 PM, Monday - Thursday; BIDDING opens (all sessions) - JUNE 10 11 AM - 1 PM, Friday Beginning June 10 at 12:01am you will be able to view the initial list 3Ls: 12 PM - 1 PM, Tuesday - of employers (for all sessions). Thursday (with Lisa Carlock); You may also start bidding (applying) for employers (for all 12 PM - 1 PM, Monday and sessions). Friday (with Shannon Kahn). 3Ls may also access general All bidding goes through Symplicity. walk-ins. Bidding deadlines vary by session. Each session has its own deadline. Need more than a few The first bidding deadline is July 14 at 11:00pm. minutes? You are only able to view employers who are recruiting for Call 530.752.6574 to your class year. schedule an appointment. OCI Questions: Please contact Kim Thomas at 530.754.5719 or [email protected] with questions pertaining to Symplicity, OCI, Off-Campus or Resume Collections.
    [Show full text]
  • A Response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court's Critics Lynn Adelman
    Marquette Law Review Volume 91 Article 2 Issue 2 Winter 2007 Exercising Judicial Power: A Response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court's Critics Lynn Adelman Shelley Fite Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Lynn Adelman and Shelley Fite, Exercising Judicial Power: A Response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court's Critics, 91 Marq. L. Rev. 425 (2007). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol91/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW Volume 91 Winter 2007 Number 2 EXERCISING JUDICIAL POWER: A RESPONSE TO THE WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT'S CRITICS THE HONORABLE LYNN ADELMAN* SHELLEY FITE** I. INTRODUCTION In recent years, legal conservatives in Wisconsin have strongly criticized the performance of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. A former member of the court, Diane Sykes, now a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, warned that the court had undergone a "dramatic shift," "depart[ed] from ... familiar and long- accepted" constraints on its power, and failed to exercise its power judiciously.' She called on Wisconsin lawyers to "sit up and take notice.",2 Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Michael B. Brennan echoed Judge Sykes's criticisms, stating that the court's actions raised concerns "about the proper exercise of judicial authority under the state's constitution and laws." 3 And Milwaukee lawyer Rick Esenberg published a paper under the aegis of the Federalist Society, quoting former congressman Dick Armey for the proposition that the court had * Lynn Adelman is a United States District Judge in the Eastern District of Wisconsin and a former Wisconsin legislator.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern District of California Northern District of California Lawyer
    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LAWYER REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT 2017-2018 Submitted by Miriam Kim (Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP) and Elizabeth Pipkin (McManis Faulkner), 2018-2019 Committee Co-Chairs. I. Introduction: This report will cover judicial developments in the Northern District since August 2017, our District Conference, and other activities of the Lawyer Representative Committee during that time. II. Judicial Appointments and Retirements A. The Northern District continues to enjoy its full complement of active district- court judges. Together with the continued strong contributions of our five senior-status judges and 12 full- time magistrate judges, the District is well prepared to serve the interest of justice in our federal system. B. In August 2017, Chief Judge Emeritus Thelton Henderson took inactive status after serving 37 years on the bench, including his 7-year term as the court’s Chief Judge from 1990 to 1997. The court held a retirement celebration at the San Francisco courthouse, in the Ceremonial Courtroom, which was renamed in his honor as the Thelton E. Henderson Ceremonial Courtroom. C. In June 2017, Bankruptcy Judge Alan Jaroslovsky retired. He served over 30 years on the Bankruptcy Court, including his tenure as Chief Bankruptcy Judge from 2011 to 2014. D. In November 2017, Magistrate Judge Vadas retired after serving in the Eureka Division for 13 years. The court appointed Robert Illman to that magistrate-judge position. E. In June 2018, Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd will retire after 16 years on the bench in the San Jose Division. The court has selected Virginia K. DeMarchi, formerly a partner at the law firm of Fenwick & West LLP, to join the Northern District bench as a Magistrate Judge upon Judge Lloyd’s retirement.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ______
    Case: 14-2058 Document: 74 Filed: 10/06/2014 Pages: 23 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 14-2058 & 14-2059 RUTHELLE FRANK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SCOTT WALKER, Governor of Wisconsin, et al., Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS (LULAC) OF WISCONSIN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DAVID G. DEININGER, Member, Government Accountability Board, et al., Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeals froM the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Nos. 11-CV-01128 & 12-CV-00185 — Lynn Adelman, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED SEPTEMBER 12, 2014 — DECIDED OCTOBER 6, 2014 ____________________ Case: 14-2058 Document: 74 Filed: 10/06/2014 Pages: 23 2 Nos. 14-2058 & 14-2059 Before EASTERBROOK, SYKES, and TINDER, Circuit Judges. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Since 2005 Indiana has re- quired voters to present photographic identification at the polls. The Supreme Court held that this statute is coMpatible with the Constitution. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008). In May 2011 Wisconsin enacted a similar statute, 2011 Wis. Act 23. A district court held that Act 23 is unconstitutional and enjoined its implementation. Frank v. Walker, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59344 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 29, 2014), stay denied, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111811 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 13, 2014). After receiving briefs and argument, we stayed that injunction. Order issued Sept. 12, 2014; reconsid- eration denied Sept. 26, 2014; opinions issued Sept. 30, 2014. We now reverse the injunction, because the district court’s findings do not justify an outcoMe different froM Crawford.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition for Writ of Certiorari in This Court
    No. _________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH, et al., Petitioners, v. KRISTIN M. PERRY, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ANDREW P. PUGNO CHARLES J. COOPER LAW OFFICES OF Counsel of Record ANDREW P. PUGNO DAVID H. THOMPSON 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100 HOWARD C. NIELSON, JR. Folsom, California 95630 PETER A. PATTERSON COOPER AND KIRK, PLLC DAVID AUSTIN R. NIMOCKS 1523 New Hampshire JAMES A. CAMPBELL Avenue, NW ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM Washington, D.C. 20036 801 G Street, NW, Suite 509 Tel: (202) 220-9600 Washington, D.C. 20001 Email: ccooper@ cooperkirk.com Counsel for Petitioners ================================================================ COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of Cali- fornia from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW Petitioners Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Mark A. Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8,
    [Show full text]