Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Craig J. Spitzer v. Trisha A. Aljoe, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 16-16680 · judgment May 10, 2018
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
Introduction This Petition involves two classes of defendantrespondents with distinct legal issues and questions presented for review: 1) A public entity and its attorneys; and 2) a state court receiver. Questions Regarding the Public Entity and its Attorneys: Does a district court have a duty under FRCP 26(g)(3) to sanction public entities and their attorneys for improper withholding of documents requested through discovery before settlement? On the facts before it, did the district court abuse its discretion regarding the public entity's and its attorneys' withholding of documents? Did the Court of Appeals abuse the abuse of discretion standard of review by not examining the whole record? Questions Regarding the State Court Receiver: Should the Barton Doctrine be applied to a state court receiver sued in his personal capacity for damages under § 1983? Is a constitutional violation within the scope of a state court receiver's authority? Did Petitioner's plead a constitutional violation by the state court receiver?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Craig J. Spitzer
For respondent
Daniel G. Sodergren
Pleasanton
Proceedings
- Jan 22 2019Petition DENIED.
- Jan 02 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/18/2019.
- Dec 06 2018Waiver of right of respondents Trisha A. Aljoe, et al. to respond filed.
- Nov 15 2018Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 20, 2018)
- Aug 24 2018Application (18A209) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until November 22, 2018.
- Aug 20 2018Application (18A209) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 23, 2018 to November 22, 2018, submitted to The Chief Justice.