green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 7×
59.9 score
“given the clear statutory language, we reject the proposition that section 7 grants arbitrators implicit powers to order document discovery from third parties prior to a hearing.”
Treatment trajectory · 2018 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2018
2022
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hanan v. USCIS
if the language has a plain meaning or is unambiguous, the 16 statutory interpretation inquiry ends there.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Chee v. Tesla Inc.
we hold that section 7 of the faa does not grant arbitrators the power to order third 6 parties to produce documents prior to an arbitration hearing
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
we hold that section 7 of the federal arbitration act does not grant arbitrators the power to order third parties to produce documents prior to an arbitration hearing.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Coleman v. United Services Automobile Association
if the language has a plain 10 meaning or is unambiguous, the statutory interpretation inquiry ends there.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Broumand v. Joseph
given the clear statutory language, we reject the proposition that section 7 grants arbitrators implicit powers to order document discovery from third parties prior to a hearing.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Board of Trustees of the Western States Office and Professional Employees Pension Fund v. Welfare & Pension Administration Service, Inc.
(2×)
if the language has a plain meaning or is unambiguous, the statutory interpretation inquiry ends there.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Managed Care Advisory Group, LLC v. Cigna Healthcare, Inc.
ection 7 of the faa does not grant arbitrators the power to order third parties to produce documents prior to an arbitration hearing.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Feinstein v. First Republic Securities Company, LLC
Reviewing de novo, see Kamm v. ITEX Corp., 568 F.3d 752, 754 (9th Cir. 2009); CVS Health Corp. v. Vividus, LLC, 878 F.3d 703, 706 (9th Cir. 2017), we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand. 1.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gonzales & Gonzales Bonds & Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Usdhs
If a statute’s provision “has a plain meaning or is unambiguous, the statutory interpretation inquiry ends there.” CVS Health Corp. v. Vividus, LLC, 878 F.3d 703, 706 (9th Cir. 2017).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
William Ehart, Jr. v. Lahaina Divers, Inc.
CVS Health Corp. v. Vividus, LLC, 878 F.3d 703, 706 (9th Cir. 2017).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vallco Property Owner, LLC. v. American Arbitration Association, Inc.
If the person(s) summoned refuse to comply, “the statute 5 gives the district court in the district in which the arbitrator sits the power to compel the person’s 6 attendance before the arbitrator.” CVS Health Corp. v. Vividus, LLC, 878 F.3d 703, 706 (9th Cir. 7 2017) (citing 9 U.S.C. § 7 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McConnell v. Advantest America
Accordingly, we conclude that 9 U.S.C. § 7 does not permit pre-hearing depositions and discovery from non-parties.”]; CVS Health Corp. v. Vividus, LLC (2017) 878 F.3d 703, 708 (CVS Health); Life Receivables Trust v. Syndicate 102 at Lloyd’s of London (2d Cir. 2008) 549 F.3d 210 , 216–217 & p. 218 [FAA “[s]ection 7’s presence requirement . . . forces the party seeking the non-party discovery—and the arbitrators authorizing it—to consider whether production is truly necessary.”].) There is a minority view holding that section 7 of the FAA gives arbitrators implicit “power to o…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McConnell v. Advantest America CA4/1
Accordingly, we conclude that 9 U.S.C. § 7 does not permit pre-hearing depositions and discovery from non-parties.”]; CVS Health Corp. v. Vividus, LLC (2017) 878 F.3d 703, 708 (CVS Health); Life Receivables Trust v. Syndicate 102 at Lloyd’s of London (2d Cir. 2008) 549 F.3d 210 , 216–217 & p. 218 [FAA “[s]ection 7’s presence requirement . . . forces the party seeking the non-party discovery—and the arbitrators authorizing it—to consider whether production is truly necessary.”].) There is a minority view holding that section 7 of the FAA gives arbitrators implicit “power to o…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Hawaii, Department of Human Services, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Hoopono-Services for the Blind v. United States Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration
“If the language has a plain meaning or is unambiguous, the statutory interpretation inquiry ends there.” CVS Health Corp. v. Vividus, LLC, 878 F.3d 703, 706 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Aixtron, Inc. v. Veeco Instruments Inc.
(2×)
(CVS Health, supra, 878 F.3d at p. 705.) HMC’s claims against CVS Health were submitted to arbitration, and its claims against Express Scripts were litigated in federal court.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Lonnie Lillard
“If the language has a plain meaning or is unambiguous, the statutory interpretation inquiry ends there.” CVS Health Corp. v. Vividus, LLC, 878 F.3d 703, 706 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Aldf v. Usda
USDA Corp. v. Vividus, LLC, 878 F.3d 703, 706 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Castro v. Tri Marine Fish Company LLC
CVS Health Corp. v. Vividus, LLC, 878 F.3d 703, 706 (9th Cir. 2017) (statutes); Hosaka v. United Airlines, Inc., 305 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2002) (treaties).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Castro v. Tri Marine Fish Company LLC
CVS Health Corp. v. Vividus, LLC, 878 F.3d 703, 706 (9th Cir. 2017) (statutes); Hosaka v. United Airlines, Inc., 305 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2002) (treaties).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lawrence Salisbury v. City of Santa Monica
Where, as here, the plain meaning of a statute indicates a particular result, the “judicial inquiry is complete.” Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 462 (2002) (quoting Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 , 253– 54 (1992)); see also CVS Health Corp. v. Vividus, LLC, 878 F.3d 703, 706 (9th Cir. 2017) (“If the language has a plain meaning or is unambiguous, the statutory interpretation inquiry ends there.” (citing Hartpence, 792 F.3d at 1128 )).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lawrence Salisbury v. City of Santa Monica
Where, as here, the plain meaning of a statute indicates a particular result, the “judicial inquiry is complete.” Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 462 (2002) (quoting Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 , 253– 54 (1992)); see also CVS Health Corp. v. Vividus, LLC, 878 F.3d 703, 706 (9th Cir. 2017) (“If the language has a plain meaning or is unambiguous, the statutory interpretation inquiry ends there.” (citing Hartpence, 792 F.3d at 1128 )).
Rahinah IBRAHIM, an individual
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Terrorist Screening Center Federal Bureau of Investigation Christopher A. Wray, in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Kirstjen Nielsen, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Jefferson B. Sessions III, Attorney General, in his official capacity as Attorney General Charles H. Kable IV, Director, in his official capacity as Director of the Terrorist Screening Center Carl Ghattas, in his official capacity as Executive Assistant Director of the FBI's National Security Branch National Counterterrorism Center Russell \Russ\" Travers
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Terrorist Screening Center Federal Bureau of Investigation Christopher A. Wray, in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Kirstjen Nielsen, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Jefferson B. Sessions III, Attorney General, in his official capacity as Attorney General Charles H. Kable IV, Director, in his official capacity as Director of the Terrorist Screening Center Carl Ghattas, in his official capacity as Executive Assistant Director of the FBI's National Security Branch National Counterterrorism Center Russell \Russ\" Travers
Dec 29, 2017.
878 F.3d 703
U
Thomas.
ORDER
THOMAS, Chief Judge:Upon the vote of a majority of nonre-cused active judges, it is ordered- that these-cases be reheard en banc-pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) - and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel disposition in these cases shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.
Judges Graber, Murguia, Owens, and Friedland did not participate in the deliberations or vote in these cases.'