From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Arnett v. Ca. Public Employees' Retirement

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 25, 2000
207 F.3d 565 (9th Cir. 2000)

Opinion

No. 98-15574

March 16, 2000.

As Amended April 25, 2000. All Petitions for Rehearing Denied May 12, 2000.

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court, D.C. No. CV-95-03022-CRB.

Before: Ferdinand F. FERNANDEZ and M. Margaret McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and Charles R. WEINER, Senior District Judge.

The Honorable Charles R. Weiner, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.


ORDER

Appellants challenged the district court's grant of motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for judgment on the pleadings. We reversed the district court. See Arnett v. California PERS, 179 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 1999). The State of California, California Public Employees' Retirement System, and several other governmental entities (collectively "the State of California") sought certiorari relief from the United States Supreme Court and, without further specification, the Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of its holding in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 120 S.Ct. 631 (2000). Kimel dealt with whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) abrogates the State's Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Supreme Court held "that the ADEA does contain a clear statement of Congress' intent to abrogate the States' immunity, but that the abrogation exceeded Congress' authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment." Id. at 637. The State of California did not raise the Eleventh Amendment immunity issue in its briefs to this court, nor was the issue argued to this court. The only reference to the Eleventh Amendment issue in this court was in a Rule 28(j) letter in which the Kimel case was cited. In light of this procedural posture, we remand this case to the district court for further consideration consistent with Kimel.

See California Public Employees' Retirement System v. Arnett, 120 S.Ct. 930 (2000).

The panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing. The petition for rehearing is DENIED. The motion to permit filing of further excerpts of record is also DENIED.

REMANDED.


Summaries of

Arnett v. Ca. Public Employees' Retirement

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Apr 25, 2000
207 F.3d 565 (9th Cir. 2000)
Case details for

Arnett v. Ca. Public Employees' Retirement

Case Details

Full title:RONALD ARNETT; HAROLD BAILEY; JIM BEAN; MARGUERETTE HOWARD; JOYCELYN…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Apr 25, 2000

Citations

207 F.3d 565 (9th Cir. 2000)

Citing Cases

Ahlmeyer v. Nevada System of Higher Education

The Ninth Circuit has applied this holding to ADEA suits against state entities. See Katz v. Regents of the…