10
SLACK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. PIRANI
Opinion of the Court
holding otherwise. Whether Mr. Pirani’s pleadings can satisfy §11(a) as properly construed, we leave for that court to decide in the first instance on remand.[1]
It is so ordered.
- ↑ As we noted at the outset, the parties do not just spar over the best interpretation of §11 and its application to this case. They do the same when it comes to §12. See Part I, supra. But we have no need to reach the merits of that particular dispute. The Ninth Circuit said that its decision to permit Mr. Pirani’s §12 claim to proceed “follow[ed] from” its analysis of his §11 claim. 13 F. 4th 940, 949 (2021). And because we find that court’s §11 analysis flawed, we think the best course is to vacate its judgment with respect to Mr. Pirani’s §12 claim as well for reconsideration in the light of our holding today about the meaning of §11. In doing so, we express no views about the proper interpretation of §12 or its application to this case. Nor do we endorse the Ninth Circuit’s apparent belief that §11 and §12 necessarily travel together, but instead caution that the two provisions contain distinct language that warrants careful consideration.
