In April, I reported that the Ninth Circuit had, within a seven-day period, made requests for decision under California Rule of Court 8.548 in two separate cases. On June 18 and 25, 2008, the California Supreme Court granted the requests and agreed to decide the questions in both cases:
Murray v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., S162570. (9th Cir. No. 06-15847; 522 F.3d 920; Northern District of California; CV-05-03633-MJJ.) Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The question presented is: “Should issue-preclusive effect be given to a federal agency’s investigative findings, when the subsequent administrative process provides the complainant the option of a formal adjudicatory hearing to determine the contested issues de novo, as well as subsequent judicial review of that determination, but the complainant elects not to invoke his right to that additional process?”
Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., S162818. (9th Cir. No. 06-56208; 522 F.3d 997; Central District of California; CV 05-5942 AHM.) Request under California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide questions of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The questions presented, as restated by this court, are: “(1) Must a plaintiff who seeks damages under California Civil Code section 52, claiming the denial of full and equal treatment on the basis of disability in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.), prove ‘intentional discrimination’? (2) If the answer to Question 1 is ‘yes,’ what does ‘intentional discrimination’ mean in this context?”
Comments