Greater Los Angels v. Cnn

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedOctober 10, 2014
Docket12-15807
StatusPublished

This text of Greater Los Angels v. Cnn (Greater Los Angels v. Cnn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Greater Los Angels v. Cnn, (9th Cir. 2014).

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREATER LOS ANGELES AGENCY No. 12-15807 ON DEAFNESS, INC.; DANIEL JACOB; EDWARD KELLY; JENNIFER D.C. No. OLSON, on behalf of themselves 3:11-cv-03458-LB and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, NOTICE OF v. WITHDRAWAL OF REÏUEST CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., FOR incorrectly sued as Time Warner CERTIFICATION Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

Filed October 10, 2014

Before: J. Clifford Wallace, M. Margaret McKeown, and Sandra S. Iµuta, Circuit Judges.

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF REÏUEST FOR CERTIFICATION

In an order filed February 5, 2014, we asµed the Supreme Court of California to answer a certified question pursuant to Rule 8.548 of the California Rules of Court. The Supreme Court of California accepted certification on March 26, 2014. On September 12, 2014, CNN filed a motion to dismiss voluntarily the appeal in the Ninth Circuit pursuant to Federal 2 GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN

Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). We granted that motion in an order filed contemporaneously with this notice. Accordingly, this court's request for certification to the Supreme Court of California is withdrawn.

The Clerµ of this Court shall forward an original and 10 copies of this notice, under official seal, to the Supreme Court of California, along with a certificate of service on the parties, copies of CNN's motion to dismiss voluntarily the appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), and the order granting the motion. FOR PUBLICATION

GREATER LOS ANGELES AGENCY No. 12-15807 ON DEAFNESS, INC.; DANIEL JACOB; EDWARD KELLY; JENNIFER D.C. No. OLSON, on behalf of themselves 3:11-cv-03458-LB and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, ORDER v.

CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., incorrectly sued as Time Warner Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

Before: J. Clifford Wallace, M. Margaret McKeown, and Sandra S. Iµuta, Circuit Judges.

COUNSEL

Thomas R. Burµe (argued), Rochelle L. Wilcox, Janet L. Grumer, Jeff Glasser, Davis Wright Tremaine, San Francisco, California; Ronald London, Davis Wright Tremaine, Washington, D.C., for Defendant-Appellant. 2 GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN

Laurence W. Paradis (argued), Mary-Lee K. Smith, and Michael Nunez, Disability Rights Advocates, Berµeley, California; Linda M. Dardarian and Jason H. Tarricone, Goldstein, Demchaµ, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian, Oaµland, California; Peter Blancµ, Syracuse, New Yorµ, for Plaintiffs- Appellees.

Karl Olson, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynsµi, San Francisco, California, for Amici Curiae Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., Hearst Corporation, California Newspaper Publishers Association, and California Broadcasters Association.

John F. Waldo, Portland, Oregon, for Amici Curiae Washington State Communication Access Project, Oregon Communication Access Project, Association of Late Deafened Adults (ALDA), Aloha State (Hawaii) Association of the Deaf, Arizona Association of the Deaf, California Association of the Deaf, Nevada Association of the Deaf, Idaho Association of the Deaf, and Oregon Association of the Deaf.

Howard A. Rosenblum and Andrew S. Phillips, National Association of the Deaf, Silver Spring, Maryland; Blaµe E. Reid and Angela J. Campbell, Institute for Public Representation, Georgetown Law, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc., National Association of the Deaf, and the Hearing Loss Association of America. GREATER L.A. AGENCY ON DEAFNESS V. CNN 3

ORDER

Appellant CNN's unopposed motion to dismiss voluntarily the appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b) is GRANTED. The parties have agreed that CNN will not pursue attorneys' fees and costs. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice. A copy of this order shall serve as and for the mandate of this court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Greater Los Angels v. Cnn, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greater-los-angels-v-cnn-ca9-2014.