HomeAway.com, Inc., et al v. City of Santa Monica
| Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals | |
| Case #: | 0:18-cv-55367 |
| Type | civil / private |
| Nature of Suit | 440 Civil Rights - Other Civil Rights |
| Case Filed: | Mar 21, 2018 |
| Terminated: | Mar 13, 2019 |
| Last checked: Friday Mar 15, 2019 1:38 AM PDT |
|
Amicus Curiae
INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus Curiae
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS INSTITUTE
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus Curiae
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC.
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus Curiae
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE, CITY OF COLUMBUS, CITY OF OAKLAND, CITY OF SEATTLE, and PUBLIC RIGHTS PROJECT
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus Curiae
APARTMENT INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT CO, AIMCO
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus Curiae
UNITE HERE INTERNATIONAL UNION
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus Curiae
INTERNET, BUSINESS, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW PROFESSORS
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus Curiae
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus Curiae
CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus Curiae
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus Curiae
EBAY INC., GLASSDOOR, INC., LYFT, INC., OFFERUP INC., TASKRABBIT, INC., THUMBTACK, INC., UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and UPWORK INC.
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus Curiae
FLOOR64, INC. D/B/A THE COPIA INSTITUTE
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus Curiae
NETCHOICE
|
Represented By
|
|
Amicus Curiae
CHRIS COX
|
Represented By
|
|
Defendant - Appellee
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff - Appellant
HOMEAWAY.COM, INC.
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff - Appellant
AIRBNB INC.
|
Represented By
|
GPO
Mar 13 2019
FILED OPINION (MARY M. SCHROEDER, JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN and MICHAEL H. SIMON) Because we affirm the district courtâ??s dismissal, we need not consider the state-law claims. We deny Santa Monicaâ??s motion for judicial notice of its prior enforcement actions because the dispute as to its prior actions relates only to the state-law claims. AFFIRMED in part, DISMISSED in part. Judge: JHN Authoring, FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [11225665] [18-55367, 18-55805, 18-55806] --[Edited: Typo corrected. 03/13/2019 by TYL] |
| Docket last updated: 03/15/2019 1:30 AM PDT |
| Wednesday, March 21, 2018 | ||
| 1 | 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: To be set. Preliminary Injunction, C.R. 3-3 [10807394] (JBS) [Entered: 03/21/2018 01:49 PM] | |
|
Att: 1
1 pgs
Docketing Letter
|
||
|
Att: 2
2 pgs
Mediation Letter
|
||
|
Att: 3
2 pgs
Mediation Questionnaire
|
||
|
Att: 4
9 pgs
Case Opening Packet
|
||
| 2 | 2
2
pgs
Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: SZ): The appeal filed March 21, 2018, is a preliminary injunction appeal. Accordingly, Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3 shall apply. The mediation questionnaire is due three days after the date of this order. If they have not already done so, within 7 calendar days after the filing date of this order, the parties shall make arrangements to obtain from the court reporter an official transcript of proceedings in the district court that will be included in the record on appeal. The briefing schedule shall proceed as follows: the opening brief and excerpts of record are due not later than April 18, 2018; the answering brief is due May 16, 2018, or 28 days after service of the opening brief, whichever is earlier; and the optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. See 9th Cir. R. 3-3(b). The parties are reminded that streamlined requests for extensions of time are not available in preliminary injunction appeals. See http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000638. Any request for an extension of time must be requested under Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(b). Failure to file timely the opening brief shall result in the automatic dismissal of this appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. [10807685] (JBS) [Entered: 03/21/2018 03:28 PM]
|
|