At the Ninth Circuit’s request, the Supreme Court today agreed to hear New England Country Foods v. Vanlaw Food Products. The federal appeals panel in the case two months ago asked the California high court to answer, “Is a contractual clause that substantially limits damages for an intentional wrong but does not entirely exempt a party from liability for all possible damages valid under California Civil Code Section 1668?” More about the case here.
After rejecting the last Ninth Circuit request for help with California law last August, the Supreme Court is again displaying its usual comity trait. It has now granted 21 of the last 23 requests (not counting the one pending request), dating back to July 2018. Before the August decision, the lone denial over the past five years was in October 2019.
Related:
Asked and answered: California Supreme Court responses to Ninth Circuit questions
The constitutionality of the Supreme Court answering the Ninth Circuit’s legal questions
Ask not what the Supreme Court can do for the Ninth Circuit
Justice Kruger and Judge Owens talk about the Supreme Court answering Ninth Circuit questions
The shadow docket . . . of California’s Supreme Court, part 2
