Balkrishna Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP

998 F.3d 897
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Balkrishna Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP. Read the opinion of the Court — 3 F.4th 1166
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided June 4, 2021·No. 18-35573·Published

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 4 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BALKRISHNA SETTY, individually and as No. 18-35573 general partner in Shrinivas Sugandhalaya Partnership with Nagraj Setty; SHRINIVAS D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01146-RAJ SUGANDHALAYA (BNG) LLP, Western District of Washington, Seattle Plaintiffs-Appellees, ORDER WITHDRAWING v. OPINION

SHRINIVAS SUGANDHALAYA LLP,

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: D.W. NELSON, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

The opinion filed January 20, 2021, and appearing at 986 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir.

2021), is withdrawn. It may not be cited by or to this court or any district court of

the Ninth Circuit. A new disposition will be filed in due course. Accordingly,

appellant Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP’s petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED

as moot. Subsequent petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc

may be filed following the filing of a new disposition.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Balkrishna Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP, 998 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2021).

998 F.3d 897 (Balkrishna Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Balkrishna Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP
986 F.3d 1139 (Ninth Circuit, 2021)