Ahmad Arian v. City of Los Angeles

Opinion

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

DEC 18 2015

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AHMAD SHAPOUR ARIAN, an No. 13-56529 individual; DEENA ARIAN, an individual, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-05261-RGK-

PLA

Plaintiffs - Appellants, Central District of California, Los Angeles

v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES; CHARLES ORDER AMENDING BECK, as an individual and in his official MEMORANDUM DISPOSITION capacity as Chief of Police; JOSE AND DENYING PETITION FOR ANZORA, Serial No. 40848; DANIEL PANEL REHEARING AND BUNCH, Officer, Serial No. 37019; PETITION FOR REHEARING DEXTER BARRAS, Officer, Serial No. EN BANC 38028; GARY HANSEN, Officer, Serial No. 39218; ROBERT CHAVIRA, Officer, Serial No. 31281; ROBERT LUNA, Serial No. 32963; ROY GUTHRIE, Sergeant, Serial No. 26211; RYAN SHAFFER, Officer, Serial No. 38771,

Defendants - Appellees.

Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

The memorandum disposition, filed November 16, 2015, is amended as follows:

1. At page 3, line 13–18, replace <the test to determine whether a homicide is “justifiable” under California law parallels the reasonableness inquiry used to analyze federal constitutional claims. See Hernandez v. City of Pomona, 207 P.3d 506, 514–16 (Cal. 2009). Because Defendants’ use of force was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, summary judgment was appropriate as to Plaintiffs’ state tort claims.> with <the test to determine whether a homicide is “justifiable” under California law “is whether the circumstances reasonably created a fear of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or to another.” Id. (quotation marks and alteration omitted). Here, the circumstances reasonably created a fear of death or serious bodily harm, and because the officers acted accordingly, summary judgment was appropriate as to Plaintiffs’ state tort claims. See Hayes v. Cty. of San Diego, 305 P.3d 252, 256 (Cal. 2013).> With this amendment, the panel judges have voted to deny appellants’

petition for panel rehearing. Judge Bybee voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judges Farris and Trott recommended denying the petition for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35.

Appellant’s petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc, filed November 24, 2015, is DENIED. The panel will not entertain future petitions for rehearing.