Legal Authorities AA-1 to AA-39
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IN THE MATTER OF AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION AFILIAS DOMAINS NO. 3 LIMITED, Claimant v. INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS, Respondent ICDR Case No. 01-18-0004-2702 AMICUS VERISIGN, INC.’S APPENDIX OF LEGAL AUTHORITY ICANN INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS June 26, 2020 LIST OF LEGAL AUTHORITIES AUTHORITY DESCRIPTION NO. AA-1 Avila v. Spokane School Dist., 852 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2017) Ball Mem’l Hosp., Inc. v. Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc., 784 F.2d 1325 (7th Cir. AA-2 1986) AA-3 Ballard v. MacCallum, 15 Cal. 2d 439 (1940) AA-4 Bank of Am., N.A. v. Moglia, 330 F.3d 942 (7th Cir. 2003) AA-5 Benton v. Hofmann Plastering Co., 24 Cal. Rptr. 268 (Ct. App. 1962) AA-6 Black’s Law Dictionary (Assignment) (11th ed. 2019) AA-7 Brewer Corp. v. Point Ctr. Fin., Inc., 223 Cal. App. 4th 831 (2014) AA-8 Cal. Civ. Code § 1442 Cal. Ins. Guarantee Assn. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 203 Cal. App. 4th AA-9 1328 (2012) City of Cleveland v. Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co., 538 F. Supp. 1306, AA-10 1318 (N.D. Ohio 1980) AA-11 Continental Cas. Co. v. Ryan Inc. E., 974 So. 2d 368, 376 (Fla. 2008) Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. v. IBT Media Inc., 2019 WL 3082845 AA-12 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2019) AA-13 Dubuque Stone Prods. Co. v. Fred L. Gray Co., 356 F.2d 718 (8th Cir. 1966) AA-14 Edwards v. Symbolic Int’l Inc., 414 F. App’x 930 (9th Cir. 2011) AA-15 In re Foreman, 850 N.E.2d 387 (Ill. App. 2006) Johnson v. J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC, 391 P.3d 865 (Or. App. AA-16 2017) AA-17 Maples v. SolarWinds, Inc., 50 F. Supp. 3d 1221 (N.D. Cal. 2014) AA-18 McCown v. Spencer, 8 Cal. App. 3d 216 (1970) Merchants Serv. Co. v. Small Claims Court of City & Cty. of San Francisco, AA-19 35 Cal. 2d 109 (1950) 2 AUTHORITY DESCRIPTION NO. AA-20 Milenbach v. Comm’r, 318 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2003) AA-21 Modern Law of Contracts § 21:6 AA-22 MRO Commc’ns, Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 2015 F.3d 1351 (9th Cir. 1999) Neuroaxis Neurosurgical Assocs., PC v. Costco Wholesale Co., 919 F. Supp. AA-23 2d 345 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) One Call Prop. Servs. Inc. v. Sec. First Ins. Co., 165 So. 3d 749 (Fla. Dist. AA-24 Ct. App. 2015) AA-25 Queen City Pizza, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 124 F.3d 430 (3d Cir. 1997) AA-26 Restatement (First) of Contracts § 166 (1932) AA-27 Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 316 (1981) AA-28 Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 322 (1981) Sierra Equity Grp., Inc. v. White Oak Equity Partners, LLC, 650 F. Supp. 2d AA-29 1213 (S.D. Fla. 2009) Spingola v. Whitewater Mountain Resorts of Connecticut, Inc., 2002 WL AA-30 31894720 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 10, 2002) AA-31 Springfield Int’l Rest., Inc. v. Sharley, 44 Or. App. 133(1980) STS Refills, LLC v. Rivers Printing Sols., Inc., 896 F. Supp. 2d 364 (W.D. AA-32 Pa. 2012) AA-33 Tampa Elec. Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 320 (1961) Thomas-Bonner Co. v. Hooven, Owens & Rentscheller, 284 F. 377 (S.D. AA-34 Ohio 1920) AA-35 Travertine Corp. v. Lexington-Silverwood, 683 N.W.2d 267 (Minn. 2004) International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), AA-36 Principles of International Commercial Contracts, Chapter 9 (2016) AA-37 U.S. Anchor Mfg., Inc. v. Rule Indus., Inc., 7 F.3d 986 (11th Cir. 1993) Upcounsel, “Transfer of Rights Contract: Everything You Need to Know,” AA-38 (https://www.upcounsel.com/transfer-of-rights-contract) AA-39 Wonsey v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 32 F. Supp. 2d 939 (E.D. Mich. 1998) 3 LEGAL AUTHORITY AA-1 Avila v. Spokane School District 81, 852 F.3d 936 (2017) 341 Ed. Law Rep. 646, 17 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3045, 2017 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3060 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment District of Washington, Edward F. Shea, District Judge, Distinguished by Duncan v. Eugene School District 4J, D.Or., January 6, Presiding, D.C. No. 2:10–cv–00408–EFS 2020 852 F.3d 936 Before: M. Margaret McKeown, Richard C. Tallman, and United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Morgan Christen, Circuit Judges. Barbara AVILA; Miguel Avila, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. OPINION SPOKANE SCHOOL DISTRICT 81, Defendant–Appellee. CHRISTEN, Circuit Judge: No. 14-35965 The Avilas, parents of a student in Spokane School District | 81, appeal the district court’s order dismissing their claims Argued and Submitted December that the District violated the Individuals with Disabilities 5, 2016, Seattle, Washington Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. The | Avilas argue that the district court misapplied the statute of Filed March 30, 2017 limitations in 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C) to their claims that the District failed to identify their child’s disability or assess Synopsis him for autism in 2006 and 2007. 1 Background: Student's parents brought action against public school district, alleging that district violated Individuals with In a question of first impression for this court, we conclude Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by failing to identify that the IDEA’s statute of limitations requires courts to bar student's disability or assess him for autism. The United States only claims brought more than two years after the parents District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, No. or local educational agency “knew or should have known” 2:10-cv-00408-EFS, Edward F. Shea, Senior District Judge, about the actions forming the basis of the complaint. Because 2014 WL 5585349, granted district's motion to dismiss on the district court barred all claims “occurring” more than two statute of limitations grounds. Parents appealed. years before the Avilas filed their due process complaint, we remand so that the district court can determine when the Avilas knew or should have known about the actions forming The Court of Appeals, Christen, Circuit Judge, held that the basis of their complaint. as a matter of first impression, IDEA’s two-year statute of limitations requires courts to apply the discovery rule without limiting redressability to the two-year period that precedes the *938 BACKGROUND date when the parent or agency knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint. Appellants Barbara and Miguel Avila are the parents of G.A., a student in Spokane School District 81. In 2006, when G.A. was five, the Avilas asked the District to evaluate him for Reversed and remanded. special education services based on “[b]ehavior” issues. One of the reasons for this request was a preschool teacher’s Procedural Posture(s): On Appeal; Motion to Dismiss. concern that G.A. might be “showing slight signs of autism.” In December 2006, a school psychologist evaluated G.A. and Attorneys and Law Firms concluded that although he displayed some “behaviors of *937 Mark A. Silver (argued) and Jeffrey A. Zachman, concern,” G.A.’s behavior was not severe enough to qualify Denton US LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Richard D. Salgado, for special education services under the IDEA. G.A.’s mother Dentons US LLP, Dallas, Texas; for Plaintiffs–Appellants. was given a copy of the evaluation report and signed a form stating that she agreed with the evaluation results. Gregory Lee Stevens (argued), Stevens Clay P.S., Spokane, Washington, for Defendant–Appellee. © 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 Avila v. Spokane School District 81, 852 F.3d 936 (2017) 341 Ed. Law Rep. 646, 17 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3045, 2017 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3060 In the fall of 2007, G.A. enrolled in kindergarten. A inactions occurring prior to April 26, 2008 *939 are barred private third-party physician diagnosed him with Asperger’s by the statu[t]e of limitations.” 3 Disorder in October 2007, and the Avilas requested that the District reevaluate G.A.’s eligibility for special education The Avilas timely appealed both decisions to the United services. A school psychologist concluded in a reevaluation States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, dated April 14, 2008 that G.A. was eligible for special where their appeals were consolidated. The consolidated educational services under the category of autism and, appeal addressed seven of the claims the ALJ deemed time- from April 2008 until February 2009, the Avilas and barred: five of their prior written notice claims and the two representatives from the District met multiple times to discuss substantive claims arguing denials of G.A.’s right to a FAPE. an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for him. 2 The Avilas and the District initially disagreed, but eventually The district court agreed with the ALJ’s determination signed an IEP in February 2009. G.A. then began attending that neither exception to the statute of limitations applied ADAPT, a specialized program in the District for students and affirmed the ALJ’s decision that the IDEA’s two-year with autism. limitations period barred the Avilas’ claims arising before April 26, 2008. The district court also affirmed the ALJ’s About a year later, the District reevaluated G.A., assessing his ruling that the April 2010 reevaluation was appropriate, that behavior, speech and language, occupational therapy needs, the IEP provided G.A.