Search

[23] The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the district court's decision that the FAAct does not preempt CA MRB, finding that CA MRB does not have a "direct bearing on the field of aviation safety."[24] The Ninth Circuit further held that 14 C.F.R. [13] It found only one FAA regulation, [14] C.F.R. § 121.467(b) (prohibiting flight attendants from working duty periods of longer than 14 hours and requiring a nine-hour rest period between duty periods), that it deemed to regulate flight attendant breaks in some way. California courts, however, are applying California's meal period and rest break laws (CA MRB) to flight attendants. California is regulating airline crew in a way that significantly impacts air carriers' prices, routes, and services and interferes with the comprehensive federal regulatory scheme directly governing pilot and flight attendant duty and rest periods. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses how the California's Fourth District Court of Appeal's decision in the 2015 case Capistrano Taxpayers Association v. City of San Juan Capistrano to strike down the defendant's tiered water pricing and taxation structure could impact California's efforts to battle a multiyear drought. Water conservation is addressed in relation to California's state constitution and California Governor Jerry Brown's call for urban areas to cut back on their water use by 25 percent.

The article focuses on the final ruling of A. Howard Matz, Judge of the U.S. District Court of the central district of California, on a lawsuit filed by the association American Optometric Society (AOS) related to false advertising of the term "board certification" by the organization American Board of Optometry (ABO). The court ruled in favor of ABO and stated that AOS failed to prove the use of the term "board certification" is false, misleading, confusing, deceptive or unfair.