Case Name: Reza NAGAHI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-11
Citations: 583 F. App'x 601
Docket Number: No. 11-17320
Parties: Reza NAGAHI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 601–601

Head Matter:
Reza NAGAHI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-17320.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 10, 2014.
Filed July 11, 2014.
Reza Nagahi, Mountain View, CA, pro se.
Susan Marie Carson, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, George Prince, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Offiee of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Charlton G. Holland, Iii, Esquire, AGCA-Offiee of the California Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: REINHARDT and THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS, District Judge.
The Honorable William K. Sessions III, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The State defendants have advised the court that "[a]lthough this case has a long and complex history, the result in this Court should be short and simple: a remand to the District Court so that Petitioner Reza Nagahi might be provided with the two possible forms of relief to which he may be eligible: the appropriate measure of Additional Trade Readjustment Alowance monetary benefits to which he is entitled by statute, and a written notification regarding his application for Remedial Education benefits." Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings in accordance with the above.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.