Legal Eagles
As appellate veterans know, oral arguments in the Ninth Circuit frequently tend to be hotter than in the state appellate courts. And one of the great things about being director of the Hastings Appellate Project, the clinical program in which Hastings students handle pro bono cases in the Ninth Circuit, is watching the students argue their cases. On any given day, the Hastings students are easily among the best advocates on the calendar. Which brings to mind that old saw about how you get to Carnegie Hall...
And last week was no exception. Teresa Li, third-year law student at Hastings and Archer Norris law clerk, argued in the Ninth Circuit. Under my supervision as well as that of assistant director Stephen Tollafield, Teresa and fellow student Brian Pettit represented a pro se plaintiff in an employment discrimination case. The case involved the unsettled state of the federal pleading requirements since the United States Supreme Court decided Twombly and Iqbal. Those cases set out a "plausibility--fair notice" standard replacing the longstanding "no set of facts" standard from Conley v. Gibson. The federal courts have been perplexed ever since, including the district court which dismissed the complaint for failure to meet the Twombly and Iqbal standards.
But on March 16, 2011, Teresa argued before Circuit Judges William Fletcher, Procter Hug, and Milan Smith. After Teresa laid out a litany of reasons why the plaintiff's complaint satisfies Twombly and Iqbal, Circuit Judge Smith interjected that he thought her client has a "slum dunk" case. The decision is pending.
Photo, left to right: Stephen Tollafield, Brian Pettit, Teresa Li, Gary Watt
The oral argument audio is available at:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000007204
.jpg){kind=link}