Legal Opinion · Concurrence

First Resort, Inc. v. Dennis Herrera

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided June 27, 2017No. 15-15434Published

1ConcurrenceTashima, Senior Circuit Judge

I concur in all of Judge Nelson’s fine opinion, except for Part 4, as to which I remain dubitante. Part 4 of the majority opinion holds that San Francisco’s Pregnancy Information Disclosure and Protection Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) is not preempted by California Business and Professions Code § 17500, California’s false advertising law (“FAL”). Yet, the analysis the opinion engages in to reach this conclusion is, at best, sketchy. Because I do not believe that this analysis can bear the weight it is asked to shoulder, I am unpersuaded that the Ordinance is not preempted by the FAL. The…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Pipoly v. BensonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
  2. Farm Raised Salmon CasesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Day v. AT & T CORP.California Court of Appeal · 1998
  4. Consumer Advocates v. Echostar Satellite Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2003
  5. Chae v. SLM Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2010

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API