No. 20-1168

Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services of Nevada, Inc., et al. v. Sharath Chandra, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-02-25
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Experienced Counsel
Tags: access-to-courts civil-procedure civil-rights comity comity-doctrine due-process federal-courts judicial-discretion legal-procedure standing Younger-abstention
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw FirstAmendment CriminalProcedure JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-04-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether any standard should guide the courts of appeals' discretion to raise Younger abstention sua sponte

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Sua sponte decision-making marks a departure from the normal adversarial process. For that reason, this Court has limited the federal courts’ discretion to resurrect unraised, nonjurisdictional defenses. Ordinarily, the courts have no power to raise such defenses on their own motion. But when a defense implicates comity interests, the courts have a measure of discretion. They can raise a comity-based defense swa sponte—but only if the defense was “‘inadverten[tly)’ overlooked” and, even then, only “when extraordinary circumstances so warrant.” Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463, 471 (2012). Like the defenses the Court canvassed in Wood, Younger abstention is a comity-based, nonjurisdictional doctrine. The question presented is: whether any standard should guide the courts of appeals’ discretion to raise Younger abstention sua sponte.

Docket Entries

2021-05-03
Petition DENIED.
2021-04-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/30/2021.
2021-02-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 29, 2021)

Attorneys

Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services of Nevada, Inc., et al.
Samuel Bracken GedgeInstitute for Justice, Petitioner
Samuel Bracken GedgeInstitute for Justice, Petitioner