This Court's supervisory power is called upon as to:

1. Whether the Ninth Circuit violated federalism, abstention, and comity by creating new law when it refused to follow California's precedence establishing there can be no actionable claim with recoverable civil damages for invasion of privacy under the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (Civil Code §1747.08)?

2. Whether the Ninth Circuit violated insurers/Petitioners' substantive due process rights when it refused to follow its own intra-circuit precedence--and California's--in finding the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (Civil Code §1747.08) can provide for actionable invasion of privacy when it reversed the lower court's order regarding no duty to defend by insurers/Petitioners?

3. Whether the Ninth Circuit's refusal to certify questions to determine if California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act proscribes against "publication" of customer data and provides for "civil damages" violated Petitioners' substantive due process rights in light of suggestion in footnote of its memorandum answers could have impacted its decision in reversing the lower court's order establishing Petitioners have no duty to defend under their insurance policy?

Whether the Ninth Circuit violated federalism, abstention, and comity by creating new law when it refused to follow California's precedence establishing there can be no actionable claim with recoverable civil damages for invasion of privacy under the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (Civil Code §1747.08)?