DOCSLIB.ORG

Cert Petition in Wynn Las Vegas, LLC V. Cesarz

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cert Petition in Wynn Las Vegas, LLC V. Cesarz No. IN THE pìéêÉãÉ=`çìêí=çÑ=íÜÉ=råáíÉÇ=pí~íÉë= _______________ WYNN LAS VEGAS, LLC AND STEVE WYNN, Petitioners, v. JOSEPH CESARZ AND QUY NGOC TANG, ET AL., Respondents. _______________ On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit _______________ PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI _______________ JOSHUA S. LIPSHUTZ EUGENE SCALIA GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Counsel of Record 555 Mission Street MIGUEL A. ESTRADA San Francisco, CA 94105 JONATHAN C. BOND (415) 393-8200 AMANDA C. MACHIN GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP GREGORY J. KAMER 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. R. TODD CREER Washington, D.C. 20036 KAMER ZUCKER ABBOTT (202) 955-8500 3000 W. Charleston Boulevard [email protected] Suite 3 Las Vegas, NV 89102 (702) 259-8640 Counsel for Petitioners QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA” or “Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., regulates specific employment practices, primarily payment of minimum wages and overtime pay, and permits private suits only for un- paid minimum wages, overtime pay, or retaliation. Id. §§ 206-207, 216(b). This Court has held that only practices the FLSA itself “prohibits” “violat[e]” the Act. Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 588 (2000). As courts (including the Fourth and Ninth Circuits) have uniformly held, the FLSA’s only provi- sion discussing tip sharing, or “pooling,” 29 U.S.C. § 203(m), says nothing restricting tip pooling by em- ployers who pay their workers a cash wage that meets the federal minimum, but merely places condi- tions on tip pooling by employers who seek to count employees’ tips toward the employer’s minimum- wage obligation. On the basis of that provision, how- ever, the Department of Labor promulgated a regula- tion restricting all tip pooling. Applying a putative principle of administrative law that the D.C. and Fourth Circuits have rejected, the Ninth Circuit up- held that regulation—and permitted a suit by pri- vate employees to enforce it—holding that the FLSA’s “silence” on tip pooling empowered the De- partment to regulate. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the FLSA imposes restrictions, en- forceable in private suits, on tip-pooling arrange- ments by employers who do not seek to count tips toward their minimum-wage obligations. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that a federal agency purporting to implement a statute may create entitlements and requirements that the statute does not, so long as the statute does not expressly prohibit the agency’s regulation. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING AND RULE 29.6 STATEMENT All petitioners in this Court—who were defend- ants in the district court (No. 13-109 (D. Nev.)) and appellees in the court of appeals (No. 14-15243 (9th Cir.))—are named in the caption. Respondents here—who were plaintiffs in the district court (No. 13-109 (D. Nev.)) and appellants in the court of appeals (No. 14-15243 (9th Cir.))—are Joseph Cesarz and Quy Ngoc Tang, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, as well as Misuk Ahn, Fredrick Amie, Youn Mi An, Conrado Angosta, Arsenio L. Angus III, Corazon Arceo, Renee Armstrong, Eman Assad, Julie Ball, Hanna Ban- nourah, Michelle Barilla, Lina Baute, Leah Benfanti, Stacey Bennett, Maria Bernard, Florentino Bigsot, Stephen Bise, Nancy Bixenmann, Donna Blair, Alan Botticello, David Brossart, Brian Burton, Montana Butler, Scott Buzz, Marina Pena Caban, Vincent Calogero, Jeffrey Camera, Tanasica Carabasu, Rich- ard Carbone, Michael Carboni, Marilda Casanova, Minh Chau, Qing Chau, Brenda Chen, Christopher Cheung, Yoon H. Choi, Kriengsak Choksawaergkorn, Jin Ah Chong, Cheryl Chung, Derrick Cliett, Wendy Collins, Joseph Comastro, Paticia Condron, Marla Connelly, Connie Cooper, Elizabeth Corbin, Mercy Corona, Charito Cruz, Bryan D’Andrea, Scott Dao, Ana Rosa Davila-Mota, Javier DelPrado, Heather Devitte, Hunter Dhue, Tanya DiLisio, Zarina Bayani Dominguez, Klaus Dongman, Lisa Dornan, Sue Du- ca, Jason Dunkle, Amber Dunlap, Vivian Duong, Earnest Elliott, Brian Elston, Jeffrey Eslinger, Mark Espiritri, Robert Falchi, Cynthia Farley, Erwin Fe- lix, Bulcha Fite, Shirley Fletcher, Sebastiana Fon- tana, Mimi Frey, Kent Fujino, Colleen Fuller, Terri iii Fuller, Dezari Funk, Maile Gabriel, Xiu Mei Gan, Janice Gannon, Lourdes Garcia, Chris Geiger, Rich- ard Gentry, Richard Genzer, James Ghang, Louis Giordani, Haeyon Golden, Jay Goodelman, Robert Gottlieb, Diane Green, Britt Hallowell, Gloria Hef- ner, Mariana Hemsey, James Hensley, Courtney Herman, Lili Hill, Shurronda Hill, William Hillers, Garry Hinh, Nancy Ho, Greg Hoevener, Sandra Hol- ton, Lohelani Hui, Jill Hutchings, Roy Jatico, Rao Jiao, Liang Jiazhu, Huynh John, Maria Johnston, Joseph Karaffa, Kanie Kastroll, Daniel Katzen- berger, John Kevin Kelly, Saakanoush Kelly, Hope Kerbs, Jin Y Kim, Kayla Kim, Yonghui Kim, Christy Kloos, Ray Kornfeld, Saudia Koronik, Maria Lourdes S. Kosaiyakanon, Roy Kridler, Jason Kruegel, Vinny Lai, Amy Lam, Eithne Lam, Tina Lambert, Ronda Larson, Jeffrey Laursen, Anita Lee, Hsiu Lee, Jacky Lee, Kenny Lee, Sang Lee, Terri Lee, Ting Lee, Jody L’Huillier, Dan Li, Chun Xia Liu, Charles E. Lody, Jr., Jeannine Lovrince, Mary Lowrey, Jennifer Lubarsky, William Luna, Phuong Luu, Freddy Maes- tas, Chris Manzi, Delia D. Martin, Mary Mason, Vic- ki McCann, Joshua J. McClelland, Darrell McCrack- en, Maria McCracken, Dancy McCully-Sexton, Mi- chael McDaniels, Laura McEwan, Tramel McKenzie, Marianne Melchionne, Ronda Mendenhall, William Messol, Harry Joe Miguel, Jeffrey Miller, Donna Mirabelli, Holly Moore, Michael Moss, Myung Moss, David Mukai, Karen Murphy, Kelly Murray, Maria Mussa, David Myers, Gina Nazareno, Rebecca Ng, Xuanthu Nguyen, Chanida Nilat, Christopher Nor- man, Jeffrey Nowotarski, Julissa Oak, Randy Odo, Ho Yong Oguma, Noemi Olaivar, Shirley Oldridge, Bobbie Palmer, William Parente, Siden Pascual, Nang Payanouvong, David Perez, Ramon Perez, Wil- liam Perraeault, Marlene Petty, Nikone Phet- iv daovieng, Soukie Phetdaovieng, Danny Plourde, Vic- toria Plourde, Jennifer Pochiro, Juneau Poon, Unchu Powell, Michael Ranallo, Lisa Randall, Susan Reaume, Carla Reiner, Russell Rischende, Carol Robertson, Laura Robinson, Sandy Rodsawahng, Je- hee Roh, Cindi Ruiter, Jeff Rutechki, Susan Sa- chanko, David Sackin, Gail Sanders, Yaneth Sando- val, Dan R. Santos, Marites Santos, Rachel Santos, Gary Sbraccia, Charan Scott, Richard Sellers, Xiangqun Shen, Pamela Shu, Byung Sim, Miguel Solorzano, Jennifer Somers, Angela Speraw, Betty Jo Spotti, Jacinta Starks, Katy Starr, Paul Steffon, Hong Sun, Maiya Sun, Ronald Szekely, Patricia Thomson, Ken Thum, Joanne Timm, Anthony Tran, Melissa Tran, Thoa Tran, Kiet Trinh, Glorifina Trin- idad, Khuu Truong, Adrian Uganiza, Jarunee Unger, Thomas Vaccaro, Brian Valesky, Peter Verba, Mar- lon Viado, Lisa Vowell, Ronnie Wan, Jerry Wang, Richard Watkins, Tammi Watkins, Lian Weinstock, Jamie Wendt, Laurence Werner, Shannon L. Wil- liams, Johnny Wong, Jamie Wuertz, Levent Yilmaz, Eun Sil Yoo, Eun Kyong Yoo, Ida Yu, Alen Zelu, Jie Zhang, and Dominic Zito. Subsequent to the court of appeals’ decision, ad- ditional individuals joined the underlying action in the district court (No. 13-109 (D. Nev.)), and an addi- tional action by other plaintiffs asserting similar claims against Wynn (No. 16-482 (D. Nev.)) was commenced and consolidated with that underlying action. Neither the additional individuals who joined the underlying case nor the plaintiffs in the new suit were parties to the case in the court of appeals, and they are not respondents in this Court. The court of appeals consolidated this case for purposes of oral argument and disposition with a v separate appeal involving one of the same issues, Or- egon Restaurant & Lodging Ass’n v. Perez (ORLA), No. 13-35765 (9th Cir.) (on appeal from No. 12-1261 (D. Or.)). The plaintiffs-appellees in ORLA are the Oregon Restaurant & Lodging Association, the Washington Restaurant Association, the Alaska Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant & Retailers Association, the National Restaurant Association, Davis Street Tavern, LLC, and Susan Ponton. The defendants- appellants in ORLA are Thomas Perez, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Labor; Laura Fortman, in her official capacity as Deputy Adminis- trator of the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor; and the United States Department of Labor. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC is a subsidiary of Wynn Las Vegas Holdings, LLC, which in turn is a subsidi- ary of Wynn America, LLC, which in turn is a sub- sidiary of Wynn Resorts Holdings, LLC, which in turn is a subsidiary of Wynn Resorts, Limited. Wynn Resorts, Limited, is a publicly held corporation and is not aware of any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page OPINIONS BELOW .................................................... 1 JURISDICTION .......................................................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY, AND REGULATORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .............. 1 STATEMENT .............................................................. 4 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ....... 17 I. THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S HOLDING THAT THE FLSA IMPOSES FREESTANDING, PRIVATELY ENFORCEABLE RESTRICTIONS ON TIP POOLING CONTRAVENES THIS COURT’S PRECEDENT AND CREATES A CIRCUIT CONFLICT ..................................... 19 II. THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S MISGUIDED “STATUTORY SILENCE” THEORY CONFLICTS WITH THIS COURT’S AND OTHER CIRCUITS’ PRECEDENT ....................... 28 CONCLUSION .........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States Courts Eighth Circuit Report 1982
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. UNITED STATES COURTS EIGHTH CIRCUIT REPORT 1982 ) P. LAY LESTER C. GOODCHILD Idge Circuit Executive 1/ , " ~¥L·"'J'~;""J,!J:!:~u::.t>;~;"';"'~"\;ti""o:4i,,*,'}~~~i'ii:I&~';:I;"1',\.~~;;'- ..,....:....:\.. · ........ b__ ,:, ''\-' _.':t. un ",a) '~,~ ,"-!.. ~,--.,.&·~".d"_.-~'''~.,.''''''''!_ ..~_,~'\_>"'''"&!~ ____ ---=..-~~l''.Co"",. ~">':>-".""". "",~""",, ,,'.'. "'._o_d'A,." .... " _ "_.'~".""" l0785~ U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this documer.t are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this c~d material has been granted by Public Domain united States Courts to the National Criminal Jus'ice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the c~ owner. _. .., UNITED STATES COURTS EIGHTH CIRCUIT REPORT ,19>82 DONALD P. LAY LESTER C. GOODCHILD Chief Judge ' Circuit Executive ' FORWARD This report is issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 332 (e) (10). The format follows '?he report issued last year for the calendar years 1980 and 1981. Sections I and II provide information relating to the members of the JUdicial family, the support staff and the administration of the Federal Courts. Section III presents operational data relating to the Judicial process within the Court of Appeals and the District Courts in the Eighth Circuit. Wherever possible data appearing in last years report is updated.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining the Demographic Compositions of U.S. Circuit and District Courts
    GETTY STEELE IMAGES/KIM Examining the Demographic Compositions of U.S. Circuit and District Courts By Democracy and Government Reform Team February 2020 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG Examining the Demographic Compositions of U.S. Circuit and District Courts By Democracy and Government Reform Team February 2020 Contents 1 Introduction and summary 7 The demographic compositions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals 10 1st Circuit 23 8th Circuit 12 2nd Circuit 25 9th Circuit 14 3rd Circuit 27 10th Circuit 16 4th Circuit 29 11th Circuit 18 5th Circuit 31 D.C. Circuit 20 6th Circuit 32 Federal Circuit 22 7th Circuit 33 The demographic compositions of the U.S. District Courts 36 District courts housed 66 District courts housed within the 1st Circuit within the 7th Circuit 39 District courts housed 71 District courts housed within the 2nd Circuit within the 8th Circuit 44 District courts housed 76 District courts housed within the 3rd Circuit within the 9th Circuit 48 District courts housed 86 District courts housed within the 4th Circuit within the 10th Circuit 54 District courts housed 91 District courts housed within the 5th Circuit within the 11th Circuit 60 District courts housed 97 District court housed within the 6th Circuit within the D.C. Circuit 110 Conclusion 111 Endnotes Introduction and summary Authors’ note: This report reflects data as of November 18, 2019. Its main goal is to provide advocates and policymakers with an accessible resource demonstrating general trends pertaining to the lack of demographic diversity across all of the lower federal courts. Some individual data points may have altered slightly between November and publication and are not reflected within this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Counsel of Record Ricardo J
    Case: 13-16941, 02/07/2014, ID: 8971543, DktEntry: 21, Page 1 of 94 Docket Nos. 13-16941 and 13-17089 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT __________________________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, Defendant-Appellant. __________________________________________________ APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE CASE NO. 02-00022 __________________________________________________ APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF __________________________________________________ SANDRA C. MILLER WILLIAM N. HEBERT OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OF JAY D. TRICKETT GUAM Counsel of Record Ricardo J. Bordallo Governor’s Complex CALVO FISHER & JACOB LLP Adelup, Guam 96910 One Lombard Street, Second Floor Telephone: (671) 475-9370 San Francisco, California 94111 Facsimile: (671) 477-4826 Telephone: (415) 374-8370 Attorney for the Office of the Governor of Facsmile: (415) 374-8373 Guam Attorney for the Defendant-Appellant on behalf of the Defendant-Appellant Government of Guam Case: 13-16941, 02/07/2014, ID: 8971543, DktEntry: 21, Page 2 of 94 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................... 3 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ............................................................................ 5 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Review: "Justicia Para Todo" Judiciary History
    Judiciary History - Historical Review: "Justicia para todo" War, diplomacy, social or economic pressure have been used throughout history to resolve disputes. They have literally shaped the world. Today’s court systems are a product of man’s desire to settle disputes in a more peaceful, equitable and socially acceptable manner. Method of justice continues to evolve in our land with every case or motion brought before the courts. Today’s Superior Court of Guam serves as a forum to resolve disputes locally. And though the system itself is not a product of Guam, the questions and conclusions most certainly are. This booklet is not so much a history of the courts as it is a story of the people of the island and type of justice that has prevailed on our shores. As we celebrate the opening of the new Guam Judicial Center, it is only fitting that we remember those who contributed to the growth of Guam’s courts system. Throughout the past century, the dedicated men and women who served the courts helped ensure that justice continued to prevail on our shores. It is to these fine people of yester year and those who will serve our courts in the future that this booklet is dedicated to. Thank you and Si Yuus Maase. Judiciary History - Justice on Guam: "The Chamorros" "Yanggen numa'piniti hao taotao, nangga ma na piniti-mu Mase ha apmaman na tiempo, un apasi sa' dibi-mu." Translated: When you hurt someone, wait for your turn to hurt. Even if it takes a while, you will pay because it's your debt.
    [Show full text]
  • American-Style Justice in No Man's Land Peter Nicolas University of Washington School of Law
    University of Washington School of Law UW Law Digital Commons Articles Faculty Publications 2002 American-Style Justice in No Man's Land Peter Nicolas University of Washington School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-articles Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons, and the Jurisdiction Commons Recommended Citation Peter Nicolas, American-Style Justice in No Man's Land, 36 Ga. L. Rev. 895 (2002), https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty- articles/297 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GEORGIA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 36 SUMMER 2002 NuMBER 4 ARTICLE AMERICAN-STYLE JUSTICE IN NO MAN'S LAND PeterNicolas* I. INTRODUCTION For much of the nineteenth century, the geographic region known today as the Oklahoma Panhandle and bounded on the east by the hundredth meridian of longitude, on the south by Texas, on the west by New Mexico, and on the north by Colorado and Kansas, was commonly referred to as the Public Land Strip, the Neutral Strip, or more ominously, "No Man's Land."1 The region was so-named * Assistant Professor, University of Washington School of Law. The author would like to thank Wendy Condiotty, Magdalena Cuprys, Ann Hemmens, Paul Holcomb, Nancy McMurrer, Cheryl Nyberg, Barbara Swatt, Lisa Wagenheim and the editors of the Georgia Law Review for their valuable research, feedback and assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit As of 10/8/2020
    Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 10/8/2020 1st Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Jeffrey R. Howard 0 Kermit Victor Lipez (Snr) Sandra L. Lynch Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson United States District Court District of Maine D. Brock Hornby (Snr) 0 Jon David Levy George Z. Singal (Snr) Nancy Torresen John A. Woodcock, Jr. (Snr) United States District Court District of Massachusetts Allison Dale Burroughs 0 Denise Jefferson Casper Timothy S. Hillman Mark G. Mastroianni George A. O'Toole, Jr. (Snr) Michael A. Ponsor (Snr) Patti B. Saris F. Dennis Saylor Leo T. Sorokin Richard G. Stearns Indira Talwani Mark L. Wolf (Snr) Douglas P. Woodlock (Snr) William G. Young United States District Court District of New Hampshire Paul J. Barbadoro 0 Joseph N. Laplante Steven J. McAuliffe (Snr) Landya B. McCafferty Federal Judges Association Current Members by Circuit as of 10/8/2020 United States District Court District of Puerto Rico Francisco Augusto Besosa 0 Pedro A. Delgado Hernandez Daniel R. Dominguez (Snr) Jay A. Garcia-Gregory (Snr) Gustavo A. Gelpi, Jr. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez (Snr) United States District Court District of Rhode Island Mary M. Lisi (Snr) 0 John J. McConnell, Jr. William E. Smith 2nd Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Jose A. Cabranes 0 Guido Calabresi (Snr) Denny Chin Christopher F. Droney (Ret) Peter W. Hall Pierre N. Leval (Snr) Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. Gerard E. Lynch (Snr) Jon O. Newman (Snr) Barrington D. Parker, Jr. (Snr) Reena Raggi (Snr) Robert D. Sack (Snr) John M.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Courts: Art. III(1), Art. I(8), Art. IV(3)(2), Art. II(2)/I(8)(3), and Art. II(1) Adjudication
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2021 Federal Courts: Art. III(1), Art. I(8), Art. IV(3)(2), Art. II(2)/I(8)(3), and Art. II(1) Adjudication Laura K. Donohue Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] Jeremy M. McCabe Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2373 https://ssrn.com/abstract=3825670 Forthcoming in Catholic University Law Review. This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Administrative Law Commons, and the Courts Commons FEDERAL COURTS: ART. III(1), ART. I(8), ART. IV(3)(2), ART. II(2)/I(8)(3), AND ART. II(1) ADJUDICATION Laura K. Donohue, J.D., Ph.D. and Jeremy McCabe, J.D.* ABSTRACT. The distinction among the several types of federal courts in the United States has gone almost unremarked in the academic literature. Instead, attention focuses on Article III “constitutional” courts with occasional discussion of how they differ from what are referred to as “non-constitutional” or “legislative” courts. At best, these labels are misleading: all federal courts have a constitutional locus, and most, but not all, federal courts are brought into being via legislation. The binary approach further ignores the full range of federal courts, which are rooted in different constitutional provisions: Art. III(1), Art. I(8); Art. IV(3); Art. II(2)/I(8)(3); and Art.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 Annual Report of the Judiciary of Guam
    Conent 38 8 Silent Witness Ceremony Justices and Judges 3 Message from the Chief Justice and Administrator of the Courts 7 Judicial Council of Guam 12 Judicial Statistics 18 Planning for the Future 23 Modernizing Court Operations 4-6 Judicial History 27 Developing Court Staff 31 Therapeutic Courts 43 Fiscal & Administration 46 Court Partners 37 Law Week MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE COURTS afa Adai! We are proud to share with you the 2011 Annual Report of the Judiciary of Guam. Inside, you will nd judicial information, useful statistics, program summaries, performance reports, and a review of judiciary events and activities. In the years preceding 2011, the Judiciary of Guam experienced unprecedented growth, signicant advancements in its administration and operations, and our transformation as the third co-equal branch of Guam’s government. We have demonstrated that we are eective and ecient in ensuring that the people of Guam have their “day in court.” e Supreme Court of Guam matured as the Court of Last Resort, leading wide scale modernization and improvement of the Guam Judiciary in an era of declining budgets, population increases, and new approaches in the administration of justice. e Judiciary is focused on planning for the future, modernizing court operations, and developing court sta. We have introduced and sustained therapeutic approaches to address cases and have sought to inform and educate the general public through community outreach and fostering community partnerships. We invite you to review this information and to take an active interest in justice. Senseramente, F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO PERRY C.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Annual Report
    UNITED STATES COURTS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES COURTS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 2019 ANNUAL REPORT 2019 ANNUAL REPORT The Office of the Circuit Executive would like to acknowledge the following for their contributions to the 2019 Ninth Circuit Annual Report: The Honorable Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit The Honorable Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Elizabeth A. Smith, Circuit Executive, Ninth Circuit Molly C. Dwyer, Clerk of Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Susan M. Spraul, Clerk, Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Eric Wade, Circuit Librarian, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Rhonda Langford Taylor, Chief Probation Officer, District of Alaska Silvio Lugo, Chief Pretrial Services Officer, Northern District of California The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit is to support the effective and expeditious administration of justice and the safeguarding of fairness in the administration of the courts within the circuit. To do so, it will promote the fair and prompt resolution of disputes, ensure the effective discharge of court business, prevent any form of invidious discrimination, and enhance public understanding of, and confidence in the judiciary. The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit Seated from left to right are Chief District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, Circuit Judge Mary H. Murguia, Chief Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas, Chief District Judge Virginia A. Phillips, Chief District Judge J. Michael Seabright. Standing from left to right are, Chief Probation Officer Rhonda Langford Taylor, Chief Pretrial Services Officer Silvio Lugo, Senior District Judge Ronald S.W.
    [Show full text]
  • Campbell Note
    JAMES T. CAMPBELL Island Judges abstract. This Note explores the persistent differences in status among federal district judges in U.S. territories. Beginning with Congress’s decision to extend life tenure to federal judges in Puerto Rico in 1966, the Note traces the evolution of local and federal courts in U.S. territories over the past half century. Although universally counted within the ninety-four districts of the Article III system, the federal district courts in Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are not staffed by Article III judges. In some cases, these federal district judges can be replaced at any moment. This regime, once defended on account of the distinguishing jurisdictional features of federal courts overseas, has outgrown its prevailing justifications. Divorced from its once-plausible logic of necessity and institutional development, the present status of federal district judges in the territories is an emerging problem in federal judicial independence that exposes the federal courts to charges of exceptionalism and political interference. Focusing on judicial administration, this Note challenges the notion that all federal district judges are created equal, highlighting an underinterrogated space in the discourse on U.S. empire: the Judicial Conference of the United States. author. Yale Law School, J.D. expected 2020; Yale College, B.A. 2013. I am grateful first and foremost to Aziz Rana for his guidance, example, and unremitting encouragement. I also owe thanks to Daniel Immerwahr, Gustavo Gelpí, Alex Munson, José Cabranes, Kate Stith, Guido Cal- abresi, Ashraf Ahmed, and numerous others for engaging with this idea and challenging my think- ing from a variety of angles.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Islands Judicial Education Programs
    December 8. 2020 Pacific Islands Judicial Education Programs 2020 Preliminary Fiscal Year Report Russ Mathieson Office of the Circuit Executive Phone: 415‐355‐8974 Education Specialist 95 Seventh Street, Suite 429 Fax: 415‐355‐8901 [email protected] San Francisco, CA 94103 This page intentionally left blank. Table of Contents I. 2020 Fiscal Year Report ....................................................................................... 4 II. About the Pacific Islands Committee ................................................................... 4 III. Overview of the Pacific Islands Judicial Education Program .............................................................................................................. 6 IV. Program Development ........................................................................................ 6 V. Target Audience .................................................................................................. 7 VI. Measuring the Impact of Judicial Training ............................................................ 7 VII. 2020 Programs at a Glance .................................................................................. 8 1. GENJR NJC: General Jurisdiction ............................................................................................... 8 2. CTINT PJC Advanced Court Interpreter Training ..................................................................... 8 3. AJIDC Appellate Judges Education Institute ...........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT of the PROCEEDINGS of a SPECIAL SESSION of the JUDICIAL CONFERENCE of the UNITED STATES R
    REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF A SPECIAL SESSION OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES r * * MARCH 19-20, 1951 WASHINGTON, D. C. r TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 331 § 331. Judicial Conference of the United States. The Chief Justice of the United States shall summon annually the chief judges of the judicial circuits to a conference at such time and place in the United States as he may designate. He shall preside at such conference which shall be known as the Judicial Conference of the United States. If the chief judge of any circuit is unable to attend, the Chief Justice may summon any other circuit or district judge from such circuit. Every judge sum­ moned shall attend and, unless excused by the Chief Justice, shall remain throughout the conference and advise as to the needs of his circuit and as to any matters in respect of which the administration of justice in the courts of the United States may be improved. The Conference shall make a comprehensive survey of the condition of business in the courts of the United States and prepare plans for assignment of judges to or from circuits or districts where necessary, and shall submit suggestions to the various courts, in the interest of uniformity and expedition of business. The Attorney General shall, upon request of the Chief Justice, report to such conference on matters relating to the business of the several courts of the United States, with particular reference to cases to which the United States is a party. The Chief Justice shall submit to Congress an annual report of the proceedings of the Judicial Conference and its recommendations for legislation.
    [Show full text]