Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Ninth Circuit to Hold Jan. 18 Hearing at UC Irvine School of Law

By Robyn Hagan Cain on January 17, 2012 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is once again taking its show on the road. The court will hold a special session on Wednesday, January 18, 2012, at the University of California (UC) Irvine School of Law.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, and Circuit Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw and Richard A. Paez will hear arguments tomorrow starting at 10 a.m. in the law school's Robinson Courtroom at 401 East Peltason Drive. While the hearing is open to the public, a photo ID is required to enter the courtroom, and there will be security checks with hand-wand magnetometers at the courtroom entrance.

As space is limited in the courtroom, the school will offer overflow seating for simulcast viewing of the hearings in nearby lecture halls.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will consider three appeals during the hearing:

  • Carrea v. Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc. Plaintiffs, alleging that Dreyer's made misleading and deceptive statements that its ice cream products were nutritious and healthy, are appealing the district court's dismissal of their diversity action against Dreyer's and Nestle USA. They claim the companies violated California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and New York Business Law.
  • Marsh v. County of San Diego. Plaintiff Brenda Marsh appeals from the district court's summary judgment in her action alleging that former deputy district attorney Jay Coulter illegally copied and distributed copies of her son's autopsy photographs in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure and her right to privacy under state and federal law.
  • Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC. Tarla Makaeff filed a diversity class action complaint against Trump University, alleging it engaged in deceptive business practices, and Trump filed a counterclaim for defamation per se. Makaeff brought her anti-SLAPP motion to strike, alleging that Trump University's motive in filing the counterclaim was to retaliate against her for her exercise of free speech. The district court held that Makaeff met her burden of establishing that the defamation claim arose out of protected First Amendment activity, but Trump University met its burden of establishing a reasonable probability that it will succeed on the merits of the claim. Makaeff, on behalf of herself and similarly situated, appeals the district court's denial of her California anti-SLAPP motion to strike Trump University's counterclaim, and its order denying her motion for reconsideration.

For more information about this special Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals session at UC Irvine School of Law, contact Brittany Rodriguez at

Related Resources:

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard