Case No. 18-55569 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Rick Siegel Plaintiff/Appellant vs. Julie Su, in her official capacity As California State Labor Commissioner Appeal for United States District Court, Southern District of California District Court CV The Honorable Christina A. Snyder, Judge, Presiding APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF RICK SIEGEL, pro per 22647 Ventura Boulevard, Ste 151 Woodland Hills CA 91364 323.864.7474i. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ARGUMENT A. Just As Appellee Concluded And Reported To The CA Legislature, Labor Code § 1700.4 (a) Is “So Unclear And Ambiguous” Reasonable People Cannot Ascertain Which Actions, If Any, Are Unlawful IV. B. Federal And State Law Uniformly Agree: As The TAA Has No Penalty Provision, Creating And Meting Out Penalties Is Unconstitutional CONCLUSION 3. 13 18FEDERAL CASES BMW of America v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1995) Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles, 754 F 3d 1147 (9th Circuit, 2014) ECC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 132 S. Ct. (2012) Grayned v. City of Rockford 408 U.S. 104 (1972) Lambert v. California 355 U.S. 225 (1957) Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451 (1939) New Jersey v. Fair Lawn Service Center, 20 NJ. 468 (NJ 1956) US. v. Evans, 333 U.S. 483, 495 (1948) CALIFORNIA STATE CASES Baron v. Los Angeles, 2 Cal. 3d 535 (1970) Buchwald v. Superior Court. 254 Cal. App. 2d 347 (1967) Dyna-Med. v. Fair Fmp. & Housing Comm., 43 Cal. 34 1385 (1987) Loving & Evans v. Blick, 33 Cal. 2d 603 (1949) Marathon v. Blasi, 42 Cal. 4% 974 (2008) People v. Merchants Protective Corp., 189 Cal. 531 (1922) Severance v. Knight-Counihan Co., 29 Cal.2d 561 (1947) RM. Sherman Co. v. W.R. Thomason, Inc., 191 Cal. App. 3d 559 (1987) Smith v. Bach, 183 Cal. 259 (1920) Styers v. Ryan, 811 F.3d 292 Wachs v. Curry, 13 Cal. App. 4th 616 (1993) Pg. Bs e 7 - 14-15, 18, 33 24,15 14 - 3, 13 17 14 13 - 13-15 WS 1S 6-7