Yesterday and today, the Ninth Circuit asked for the Supreme Court’s help with state law issues in two separate cases. And, no, still not that one.

Yesterday’s case is an employment matter, Mendoza v. Fonseca McElroy Grinding Co. Inc. The federal appeals court wants the Supreme Court to answer this question: “Is operating engineers’ offsite ‘mobilization work’ — including the transportation to and from a public works site of roadwork grinding equipment — performed ‘in the execution of [a] contract for public work,’ Cal. Lab. Code §1772, such that it entitles workers to ‘not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed’ pursuant to section 1771 of the California Labor Code?”

This sounds like it’s related to the prevailing-wage issue that the Supreme Court has already agreed to decide for the Ninth Circuit in Busker v. Wabtec Corp.

Today’s case — Yahoo! Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. — raises an insurance issue. The Ninth Circuit is asking the Supreme Court, “Does a commercial liability policy that covers ‘personal injury,’ defined as ‘injury . . . arising out of . . . [o]ral or written publication . . . of material that violates a person’s right of privacy,’ trigger the insurer’s duty to defend the insured against a claim that the insured violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text message advertisements that did not reveal any private information?”

The court should let the Ninth Circuit know by the middle of March — give or take — whether it will answer the question.  It probably will.

[Update: the court has docketed the Yahoo! case.]