DOCSLIB.ORG

2002 ANNUAL REPORT the Office of Circuit Executive Would Like to Acknowledge the Following for Their Contributions to the 2002 Annual Report: Chief Judge Mary M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2002 ANNUAL REPORT the Office of Circuit Executive Would Like to Acknowledge the Following for Their Contributions to the 2002 Annual Report: Chief Judge Mary M Ninth Circuit UNITED STATES COURTS 2002 ANNUAL REPORT The Office of Circuit Executive would like to acknowledge the following for their contributions to the 2002 Annual Report: Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder Clerk of Court Cathy Catterson Chief Pretrial Services Officer Tim McTighe Chief Probation Officer Sue Sorum Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Clerk Nancy Dickerson Inside front cover: Cover image is from the ceremonial courtroom of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. TABLE OF CONTENTS Ninth Circuit Overview 3 Foreword, Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder 7 An Overview of the Ninth Circuit 8 The Judicial Council and Administration of the Ninth Circuit 9 Judicial Council Organizational Chart 10 Judicial Policy Advisory Groups Committees of the Ninth Circuit 12 Ninth Circuit Makes Strides in Managing Capital Habeas Cases 14 Public Information and Community Outreach Committee 16 Judicial Wellness Committee Focuses on Judges’ Health and Well Being Transitions 18 New Judges in 2002 22 Deceased Judges Space and Security 24 Ninth Circuit Committee Tackles Space and Security Issues 27 Courthouse Construction Projects The Ninth Circuit in 2002 32 Summary of the Court of Appeals 35 Courts Adjust to Large Pro Se Caseload 37 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference 40 International Relations 44 Alternative Dispute Resolution 45 Pretrial Services Carries Highest Caseload in Nation 48 Courts Rely on Probation Officers 52 Border Courts Lead Way in Federal Public Defender Cases Statistical Overview 56 Appellate Filings Reach Historic High 59 District Court Filings on Upswing 63 Bankruptcy Filings Rise 66 Bankruptcy Appeals Up 67 Cases Terminated by Magistrate Judges 68 Court Interpreter Usage / Juror Utilization Statistics 69 District Caseloads Annual Report 2002 1 JUDICIAL COUNCIL THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT Front row: Chief District Judge William B. Shubb, Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, Chief Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder, Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima, Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas. Back row: Senior District Judge Robert J. Bryan, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Edward D. Jellen, Chief District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher, Senior Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher, Magistrate Judge Virginia A. Mathis, Senior District Judge Jack D. Shanstrom, Chief District Judge David A. Ezra MISSION STATEMENT United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit 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 under- standing of, and confidence in, the judiciary. 2 Ninth Circuit United States Courts FOREWORDFORWARD FOREWORD Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder ach year, the federal courts of the Ninth Circuit can be counted upon to decide any number of high-profile cases. While 2002 E was no exception, it ultimately may be remembered not for several big cases, but for thousands of smaller ones involving would- be immigrants to the United States. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals typically deals with several hundred immigration appeals every year. But in 2002, the court was swamped with such For the calendar year, the Court of Appeals received 12,388 appeals, appeals, resulting in an unpre- an increase of more than 23 percent from 2001, which, itself, was a record year for case filings. The vast majority of the additional cedented increase in case filings appeals involved Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and coloring virtually all of matters. INS-related filings numbered 3,672 in 2002, an increase the court’s annual statistics. of 302 percent from the prior year. The sudden influx skewed national totals. While the Ninth Circuit accounted for nearly 21 percent of the national appellate filings for 2002, it had almost 57 percent of INS cases and 51 percent of the administrative agency appeals filed last year. Behind this dramatic change was a Department of Justice directive to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of the INS to clear a backlog of pending appeals. Through expedited reviews, the BIA began terminating cases at a rapid rate, most frequently by denial of residency. Almost as quickly as the BIA closed these cases, they were appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On average, the Court of Appeals received 70 petitions for review of BIA decisions each week in 2002. Nearly all of the petitions for review included motions to stay depor- tation. Under existing Ninth Circuit case law, a temporary stay is automatically granted and a schedule set for timely agency response. However, in an indication that these cases may be with us for some time, the court has received numerous agency motions for extension of time to respond to orders, file briefs, and prepare the records. To provide flexibility to deal with so many cases, the court has adopted a general order that establishes a streamlined notification system and provides for oral extensions of the time limits set forth in the existing rules. Further amendments to the order may be made as warranted. Annual Report 2002 3 FOREWORD All told, the court met for a total of 441 panel days opinions in 20 of these cases, affirming five and in 2002. The court granted en banc review in 17 reversing or vacating 15. The Supreme Court’s rever- cases, hearing oral arguments in 16 and issuing sal rate for the 2001-02 term (when most of the written opinions in 14. Ninth Circuit cases were reviewed) was 76 percent for all circuits and 78 percent for the Ninth Circuit. The court’s burgeoning caseload was handled by an active appellate bench of 24 judges (with four District and Bankruptcy Courts vacancies), augmented by 21 senior circuit judges Continuing population growth and increasing law and, sitting by designation, both district judges from enforcement activity in two states bordering Mexico within the circuit and circuit judges from other have made the federal courts of the Ninth Circuit the circuits. Senior circuit judges continued to make a busiest in the nation. In 2002, district courts in the major contribution to court operations, sitting on circuit accounted for 18 percent of the total federal more than one-fifth of the circuit panels, serving on court caseload. Total case filings in the district courts circuit committees and task forces, and representing were 57,241, up 2 percent from the prior year. the circuit on national judicial committees. Due in part to a new crackdown on illegal firearms The infusion of INS cases caused administrative and a change in reporting procedures, criminal filings appeals to increase by 256 percent from the prior in the district courts rose 9 percent in 2002, slightly year. Administrative appeals ranked first among higher than the national increase of 8 percent. The sources of appeals with more than 31 percent of top two categories of criminal offenses were violations the total. Private prisoner petitions ranked second of immigration and drug laws, which accounted for with almost 19 percent, followed by private civil 35 and 23 percent, respectively, of the total criminal appeals with over 17 percent. The Central District cases. The District of Arizona and the Southern of California, the busiest judicial district in the District of California, which include segments of nation, continued to generate the largest number the United States-Mexico border, reported the of appeals for the court, 2,272 cases or 18.3 percent greatest numbers of immigration and drug offenses. of the total filings. Senior district judges made a major contribution to The Court of Appeals once again was faced with a the work of the district courts. Senior judges presided growing number of pro se cases, in which at least over trials, motions and law calendars, and other one party is self-represented. In 2002, pro se proceedings; accepted designations as visiting cases numbered 5,070, amounting to 41 percent judges in other districts; carried out administrative of all filings. The largest categories of pro se cases assignments; and served on a wide variety of judicial were private prisoner petitions (1,900 cases) and committees. District courts also relied heavily on the administrative appeals (1,200 cases), the latter work of just over 100 magistrate judges, who termi- again reflecting the large increase in INS cases. nated more than 17,000 civil cases and oversaw In 2002, the Supreme Court reviewed 23 cases disposition of some 18,000 cases involving misde- decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in meanor and petty offenses. 2002 or earlier. The Supreme Court issued written 4 Ninth Circuit United States Courts FOREWORD Bankruptcy courts in the Ninth Circuit experienced The Ninth Circuit ended the year with four vacant a 2.2 percent rise in filings in 2002 to 282,594 judgeships among its district courts. In addition, cases. The increase was less than half of what was seven new judgeships created by the 21st Century reported nationally in 2002, which set a record for Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization the most bankruptcy filings in history. The largest Act, which became law in December, are authorized number of filings came under Chapter 7 of the to go into effect in July 2003. Five of the new Bankruptcy Code, totaling 229,465 (business and judgeships are permanent positions for the Southern non-business) and comprising 81.2 of all bankruptcy District of California, whose judges currently carry the cases in the circuit. A total of 51,075 Chapter 13 heaviest caseload in the country. Two are temporary cases (business and non-business) were filed in the judgeships, one each for the District of Arizona Ninth Circuit, amounting to 18.1 percent of the and the Central District of California, both of which total cases filed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hastings Community (Summer 1995) Hastings College of the Law Alumni Association
    UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Hastings Alumni Publications 6-1-1995 Hastings Community (Summer 1995) Hastings College of the Law Alumni Association Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/alumni_mag Recommended Citation Hastings College of the Law Alumni Association, "Hastings Community (Summer 1995)" (1995). Hastings Alumni Publications. 92. http://repository.uchastings.edu/alumni_mag/92 This is brought to you for free and open access by UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Alumni Publications by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. HASTINGS 1 - 15 - LETTER TO ALUMNI HASTINGS' STARS OF LIBERTY Dean fary Kay Kane reports on the This August marked the 75th anniversary of College's scholarly /Jublications. 8 the 19th Cons titutional Amendment extending to GERALD POSNER: BIGGER THAN American women the right to vote. LIFE AFTER LAW SCHOOL Two Hastings alumnae starred in the movement Alumnus Gerald Posner ('78) uses his -by Mae Silver. 2 Hastings' Law Review experience to BOARD NOTES research conspiracy theories, Chinese Triads and Mengele New Leaders for -by Judy Lane. Board of Directors and - 16- Hastings 1066 Foundation. LEOP 25TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION LEOP participants , past and present, - 10- comment on LEOP's success at the ALUM SERVES AS PRO BONO anniversary celebration. 3 LEGAL ADVISOR FOR ALUMNUS OF THE YEAR FLEDGLING DEMOCRACIES Marvin Sussman , recipient of this Mary Noel Pepys ('78) tells what it's like to year's prestigious volunteer as a liaison in Bulgaria for the Alumnus of the Year award American Bar Association's Central and - 18 - -by Judy Lane.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
    Case5:10-cv-02553-RMW Document183 Filed09/12/13 Page1 of 30 1 Michael W. Sobol (State Bar No. 194857) Roger N. Heller (State Bar No. 215348) 2 LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor 3 San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 4 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 5 [additional counsel listed on signature page] 6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Interim Class Counsel 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 In Re Apple and AT&T iPad Unlimited Case No. 5:10-cv-02553 RMW 12 Data Plan Litigation PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND 13 MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING ALL CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF 14 PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS AND FOR RELATED 15 RELIEF; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 16 Date: September 26, 2013 17 Time: 2:00 p.m. Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLTFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR 1129887.1 ORDER RE: PRELIM. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 5:10-CV-02553 RMW Case5:10-cv-02553-RMW Document183 Filed09/12/13 Page2 of 30 1 NOTICE OF MOTION 2 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 26, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., in the Courtroom of 4 the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, United States District Judge for the Northern District of 5 California, San Jose Division, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California, Plaintiffs Adam 6 Weisblatt, Joe Hanna, David Turk, Colette Osetek and Aaron Friedman (“Plaintiffs”) will and 7 hereby do move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for the entry of 1 8 Orders: 9 (a) preliminary approving a proposed Stipulation of Settlement entered into between 10 Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, and defendant Apple Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • OPPOSITION to EFFORTS to SPLIT the NINTH CIRCUIT (November 6, 2006)
    SUMMARY OF OPPOSITION TO EFFORTS TO SPLIT THE NINTH CIRCUIT (November 6, 2006) Opponents of proposals to split the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals include the vast majority of judges from the Ninth Circuit, elected officials, bar associations, law professors, prominent practitioners, editorial boards, and civil rights, women's rights, disability rights, labor, health, religious, conservation and other national, state and local groups. For links to the letters, testimony and more from the opposition cited below, go to: http://www.judgingtheenvironment.org/issues/page.jsp?itemID=27579314 Click to Jump To: Judges // Elected Officials // Public Interest Groups //Tribes // Bar Associations // Law Professors // Prominent Practitioners // Editorial Boards // Commentary // Opponents of Immediate Action // ______________________________________ A. JUDGES: Click to Jump to: Judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: Joint or Individual Letters Judges on the U.S. District Courts: Joint or Individual Letters Judges on U.S. Bankruptcy Courts in the Ninth Circuit i. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges: Includes all but three active judges who have taken a position. 1. Joint Opposition: • 33 Ninth Circuit Court Judges, For Federalism and Separation of Powers, A Court United: A Statement of A Number of Ninth Circuit Judges, Engage, vol. 7, Issue 1, (March 2006) (signatures ordered as in the article): Mary M. Schroeder Procter Hug, Jr. Chief Judge Senior Judge Appointed by Pres. Carter 09/26/79 Appointed by Pres. Carter 09/15/77 James R. Browning Otto R. Skopil Senior Judge Senior Judge Appointed by Pres. Kennedy 09/18/61 Appointed by Pres. Carter 01/01/86 Alfred T. Goodwin Betty B.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Showdown at the ND C[Orr]
    Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property Volume 18 Issue 3 Article 7 6-4-2019 Patent Showdown at the N.D. C[orr]al Peter S. Menell Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/ckjip Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Peter S. Menell, Patent Showdown at the N.D. C[orr]al, 18 Chi. -Kent J. Intell. Prop. 450 (2019). Available at: https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/ckjip/vol18/iss3/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property by an authorized editor of Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. PATENT SHOWDOWN AT THE(DO NOT DELETE) 5/20/2019 9:17 PM PATENT SHOWDOWN AT THE N.D. C[ORR]AL PETER S. MENELL* ABSTRACT Software patent cases often present dozens of claims requiring tremendous effort and years of costly litigation to resolve. In a provocative essay, Judge William Alsup offers an innovative case management solution inspired by western frontier justice. As Judge Alsup warned attorneys in a recent case, tell your clients that “the day of reckoning is close at hand.” Modeled after the famous “Shootout at the OK Corral,” the “Showdown at the N.D. C[orr]al” aims to streamline patent litigation by requiring the patentee to choose its “best” claim and the defendant to choose the “weakest” claim for an early summary judgment showdown.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 US COURT of APPEALS for the NINTH CIRCUIT Judicial Profile
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Judicial Profile: Carlos Bea COURT: Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals APPOINTED: 2003, by President George W. Bush BORN: April 18, 1934 LAW SCHOOL: Stanford Law School PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE: San Francisco Superior Court Bench, 1990-2003 After long wait, Bea ascends federal bench Jason Hoppin The Recorder November 18, 2003 Carlos Bea can breathe a little bit easier now. Not only are his chambers in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals much larger than his old haunt at the San Francisco Superior Court, but he no longer has to wonder what kind of federal judge he'd have made. He's about to find out. The longtime litigator and dedicated Republican had been on the superior court a little more than a year when the first President Bush tapped him for the Northern District federal bench. His nomination died without a hearing, however, and Bea waited a decade before being offered his current post. The former Olympian is still fit at 69 years old. The white hair, dark complexion and crisp shirts project the dignity of an ambassador. Bea seems to fit right in at the beaux-arts Ninth Circuit headquarters on Seventh and Mission streets. His enormous office is decorated with paintings from his personal collection -- portraits and scenes painted in a classical style. Weathered antiques have been imported in a feeble attempt to fill the cavernous space. On the superior court, Bea required decorum in the courtroom. Some lawyers say he can come across as imperious.
    [Show full text]
  • National Docketing Association Home Page About Us William Mckay Calendar of Events
    NNaattiioonnaall DDoocckkeettiinngg AAssssoocciiaattiioonn Calendaring our future together. January 29, 2016 Volume 3, Number 1 In This Issue President's Message President's Message Editor's Note NDA Newsletter Welcome to the January 2016 NDA Newsletter! Committee NDA Welcomes Mary February is upon us. It is hard to believe January has Beaudrow as Treasurer almost come and gone. I hope you all read our annual journal last month. The white papers by our vendors were NDA Comics amazing! I want to thank all of our sponsors for their New York State Updates time, articles and ads. We are so proud of the Journal Delaware State Update that we are sending it to some organizations thinking of becoming a formal chapter of the NDA. Well done and once again thank you Ninth Circuit Change for for sponsoring the NDA! Submitting Seal Materials In the coming weeks we will be announcing the location of our 2016 NDA San Francisco Conference. We are looking to add to our committees to assist in planning Chapter the conference. Please contact me if you are interested in joining a CA State Rule Changes – committee. I know you will find the work enjoyable and rewarding. I would Civil also like to welcome our new Chapters that have joined the NDA in the past year. At this time last year chapters were just a thought. Thank you to Olivia NDA Board Members Bane and the Membership Committee for all their hard work! Stay warm, National Docketing spring will be here soon! As always, if you have any questions or Association Home Page suggestions do not hesitate to contact me at About us [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property in the New Technological
    Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age A Conference for Federal Judges Sponsored by the Federal Judicial Center and the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology PROGRAM Tuesday, May 19, 2015 Boalt Hall, Room 140, UC Berkeley Campus 8:00 am Shuttle leaves the Claremont Hotel to Boalt Hall 8:15 am Breakfast 8:40 am Welcome and Opening Remarks Dean Sujit Choudhry 8:45 am Introduction to the Program Professor Peter Menell Patent Law Overview: Requirements for Patentability Professor Peter Menell 10:30 am Break 10:45 am Patent Law Overview: Infringement and Remedies Professor Mark Lemley 12:00 pm Lunch 1:00 pm Patent Local Rules, Pre-Trial Orders, and Early Case Management Philosophy, Context, Logic, and Departures Moderator: George Pappas Panelists: Judge Rodney Gilstrap, E.D. Tex. Judge Kathleen O’Malley, Fed. Cir. Judge Ronald Whyte, N.D. Cal. Chief Judge Leonard Stark, D. Del. Michael Jacobs • Twombly, Iqbal, and Form 18 • Venue, Stays, and Parallel Litigation (ITC, PTO, joinder/MDL) • Limitations on the Number of Claims/Prior Art References • eDiscovery • Staging – Vetting Remedies Theories Early • Patentable Subject Matter 2:45 pm Break 3:00 pm Patent Claim Construction - Substantive Overview Presenter: Professor Peter Menell Matthew Powers version: 5-15-15 -1- 3:30 pm Afternoon Calendar: Claim Construction Hearing • Claim Construction Simulations • Lux v BrightBlue (“inclusion”/”three-dimensional inclusions”) • Mangosoft v. Oracle (“local . .”) 4:30 pm Adjourn & Shuttle to the Claremont Hotel 5:45 pm Shuttle leaves the Claremont Hotel to Professor Peter Menell’s home 6:00 pm Dinner and Reception (home of Professor Peter Menell) 8:30 pm Shuttle leaves Professor Menell’s home to the Claremont Hotel Wednesday, May 20, 2015 Boalt Hall, Room 140, UC Berkeley Campus 8:15 am Shuttle leaves the Claremont Hotel to Boalt Hall 8:30 am Breakfast 9:00 am Patent Case Management: Selected Issues Moderators: Peter Menell and Matthew Powers Panelists: Judge Rodney Gilstrap, E.D.
    [Show full text]
  • C R I T E R I O N J O U R N a L O N I N N O V a T I O N
    THE C RITERION J OURNAL ON I NNOVAT I ON Vol. 3 E E E 2018 Is Patent Holdup a Hoax? J. Gregory Sidak* Many economists—and perhaps even a fair number of judges and lawyers— would agree that a sound economic theory can usefully inform the legal analysis of a complex commercial dispute. But how likely is it that knowl- edge accrues in the opposite direction? Can the expediency of legal advocacy serendipitously inspire a breakthrough in economic understanding? Can a client’s desired outcome in a consequential legal dispute plausibly motivate a novel economic theory that genuinely advances science? Perhaps so, if one embraces a new interpretation of Oscar Wilde’s notion of “the triumph of hope over experience.”1 But only perhaps. In 2007, two law review articles debuted the patent-holdup conjecture, which has since become de rigueur for any implementer of an industry stan- dard to allege against a holder of standard-essential patents (SEPs) when the parties dispute whether the SEP holder has offered to license those patents on legitimately fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms. The patent-holdup conjecture quickly became a big business. The first article2 was written by Mark Lemley, a distinguished law professor at Stanford and (at the time) of counsel to the San Francisco litigation boutique Keker & Van Nest, and by Carl Shapiro, an equally distinguished economics professor at Berkeley and a senior consultant to Charles River Associates (a publicly * Chairman, Criterion Economics, Washington, D.C. Email: [email protected]. I thank Joseph Linfield, Douglas Maggs, Urška Petrovčič, Marc Richardson, Melinda Ledden Sidak, Jeremy Skog, Blount Stewart, Han Tran, and Andrew Vassallo for helpful research and comments.
    [Show full text]
  • 2001-02 Sports Law Developments
    2013-14 Sports Law Developments (from May 15, 2013 through May 10, 2014) Index: Agents & Agent Regulation p.1 Leagues – Labor Matters p.5 Doping & Drug Testing p.21 Leagues -- Non-Labor Matters p.28 Individual Sports p.46 College & Other U.S. Amateur Sports p.51 Title IX/Gender Equity & Civil Rights p.71 Intellectual Property & Broadcasting p.74 Personal Injury p.81 International & Olympic Sports p.83 Appendix A p.89 CHAPTER One. Moral Integrity of the Sport: The Role of the Commissioner and the Law. Section C. Challenges to the Best Interests of the Sport. Subsection 1. Misconduct on the Field, Court, or Ice. ►Washington Redskins safety Brandon Meriweather had a two-game suspension imposed by the NFL’s vice president for football operations Merton Hanks for multiple helmet-to-helmet hits reduced on appeal to one game by NFL appeals officer Ted Cottrell on October 30, 2013, two days after the two game suspension was announced. The one game suspension will cost Meriweather about $70,000 in lost salary. The suspension was imposed as a result of repeated hits Meriweather made on defenseless receivers, two in Washington’s victory over the Chicago Bears the previous Sunday and another for a hit on Green Bay Packer RB Eddie Lacy in the second week of the season that caused Lacy to receive a concussion and forcing him out of the game, a hit for which Meriweather was fined $42,000. Ironically, a second helmet-to-helmet hit in the Green Bay game gave Meriweather himself a concussion causing him to miss the rest of that game.
    [Show full text]
  • Pleasanton CA 94588 Stuart Hing 24405 Amador St. Hayward CA 94544 Court of Appeals: 6Th Dist
    ALTERNATE POSTAL ORGANIZATION SUPERVISING ATTORNEY CONTACT STREET ADDRESS CITY STATECODE Alameda County Superior Court Jdg. Alice Vilardi 5672 Stoneridge Dr. Pleasanton CA 94588 Stuart Hing 24405 Amador St. Hayward CA 94544 Court of Appeals: 6th Dist. Justice Nathan Mihara Karen Byrum 333 W. Santa Clara St. Ste 1060San Jose CA 95113 Justice Franklin Elia 333 W. Santa Clara St. San Jose CA 95113 Justice Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian 333 W. Santa Clara St. San Jose CA 95113 Judge Wendy Duffy 333 W. Santa Clara St. San Jose CA 95113 Ninth Circuit Court Jdg. John Noonan 95 7th St. San FranciscoCA 94103 Northern California District, San Francisco Judge Jeffrey White Kristen Ring 450 Golden Gate Ave. San FranciscoCA 94102 Judge Charles R. Breyer 450 Golden Gate Ave. San FranciscoCA 94102 Judge Alsup Katherine Young 450 Golden Gate Ave. San FranciscoCA 94102 Judge Susan Illston Marian Mon 450 Golden Gate Ave. San FranciscoCA 94102 Judge Maria-Elena James Office of Administrative Judges, Dept. of Labor Jacob Richards 90 Seventh St., Ste. 4-800 San FranciscoCA 94103 City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. San San Francisco City Attorney's Office Yvonne Mere Goodlette Pl. Francisco CA 94102 San Francisco Superior Court Judge Julie Tang 400 McAllister San Francisco Judge Charlotte Woolard 400 McAllister San FranciscoCA 94102 San Jose Superior Court Judge Peter Kirwan 191 N. First St. San Jose CA 95113 San Mateo Superior Court David Cairns 400 County Center, 7th Fl. Redwood CityCA 94063 Bob Colyar & Marina Santa Clara County Superior Court Hernandez 191 N. First St. San Jose CA 95113 Hon. Diane Ritchie 170 Park Ave., Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • District Court of Northern California Docketing Notice 11 February 2015
    Case: 15-1326 Document: 1-1 Page: 1 Filed: 02/11/2015 (1 of 72) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT NOTICE OF DOCKETING 15-1326 - Glassey v. Microsemi Inc. Date of docketing: February 11, 2015 Appeal from: United States District Court for the Northern District of California case no. 3:14-cv-03629-WHA Appellant(s): Michael E. McNeil, Todd S. Glassey Critical dates include: • Date of docketing. See Fed. Cir. R. 12. • Entry of appearance. (Due within 14 days of the date of docketing.) See Fed. Cir. R. 47.3. • Certificate of interest. (Due within 14 days of the date of docketing.) See Fed. Cir. R. 47.4. • Docketing Statement. (Due within 14 days of the date of docketing, or within 30 days if the United States or its officer or agency is a party in the appeal.) [Only in cases where all parties are represented by counsel. See the en banc order dated September 18, 2006, and guidelines available at www.cafc.uscourts.gov.] • Requests for extensions of time. See Fed. Cir. R. 26 and 27. N.B. Delayed requests are not favored by the court. • Briefs. See Fed. Cir. R. 31. N.B. You will not receive a separate briefing schedule from the Clerk's Office. However, in a case involving an appellant, a cross-appellant, and an appellee, a special briefing schedule is used. The appellant's opening brief is due within 60 days of the date of docketing. The cross- appellant's opening brief is due within 40 days of filing of the appellant's opening brief.
    [Show full text]