Krupski v. Crociere, 330 Fed.Appx. 892 (11th Cir. 2009)
Issue: Whether Fed. R. Cir. P. 15(c)(1)(C) – which permits an amended complaint to “relate back,” for limitation purposes, when the amendment corrects a “mistake concerning the proper party’s identity” – permits “mistakes” where the plaintiff had imputed knowledge of the identity of the added defendant prior to filing suit.
Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., 336 Fed.Appx. 332 (4th Cir. 2009)
Issues: (1) Whether ERISA § 502(g)(1) provides a district court with discretion to award reasonable attorney’s fees only to a prevailing party; and (2) whether a party is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to § 502(g)(1) when she persuades a district court that a violation of ERISA has occurred, successfully secures a judicially ordered remand requiring a redetermination of entitlement to benefits, and subsequently receives the benefits sought on remand.
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 570 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2009)
Issues: (1) Whether plaintiffs under the National Environmental Policy Act are specially exempt from the requirement of showing a likelihood of irreparable harm to obtain an injunction; (2) whether a district court may enter an injunction sought to remedy a NEPA violation without conducting an evidentiary hearing sought by a party to resolve genuinely disputed facts directly relevant to the appropriate scope of the requested injunction; and (3) whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it affirmed a nationwide injunction that sought to remedy a NEPA violation based on only a remote possibility of reparable harm.
Rent-A-Car v. Jackson, 581 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 2009)
Issue: Whether the district court is in all cases required to determine claims that an arbitration agreement subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is unconscionable, even when the parties to the contract have clearly and unmistakably assigned this “gateway” issue to the arbitrator for decision.
Doe v. Reed, 586 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 2009)
Issues: (1) Whether the First Amendment right to privacy in political speech, association, and belief requires strict scrutiny when a state compels public release of identifying information about petition signers; and (2) whether compelled public disclosure of identifying information about petition signers is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.
*Issue statements courtesy of SCOTUSBlog.