Christopher Mendoza v. Nordstrom
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
GRABER, Circuit Judge:
We respectfully ask the Supreme Court of California to exercise its discretion to decide the three certified questions set forth in Part' II of this Order, below. ■ See Cal. R. Ct. 8.548. The answers to these questions of California law would be dis-positive of the appeal before us, and no clear controlling California precedent exists. Id. Moreover, because the questions that we certify are of extreme importance to tens of thousands of employees in California, considerations of comity and federalism suggest that the court of last resort in California, rather than…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
- People v. RobertsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- People v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
- Klein v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Nykeya Kilby v. Cvs Pharmacy, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
3Cited by5 opinions
- Mendoza v. Nordstrom, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2017
- Key v. Qualcomm IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2025
- Christopher Mendoza v. NordstromCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
- Milligan v. TrautmanDistrict Court, W.D. Texas · 2006
- Stephanie Delzer v. Nancy A. BerryhillCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2018