CINTAS CORPORATION v. Abel
This text of 658 F.3d 888 (CINTAS CORPORATION v. Abel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
CINTAS CORPORATION, Plan Administrator for the Cintas Partners' Plan, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Robert J. ABEL; David J. Abrahamsen; Nicholas Ackerman; Randall Adams; Jack Addison; Donald Adkins; Joseph W. Adolph; Bradley Agler; Jason Agostini; Vince Agozzino, Defendants-Appellants.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Mark Coleman Dosker, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P., San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
*889 Lawrence Allen Abelson, Esquire, Epport, Richman & Robbins, LLP, Albert H. Meyerhoff, Jr., Esquire, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP Los Angeles, CA, Nancy Juda, Esquire, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, Washington, DC, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP, San Francisco, CA, Theresa Mary Traber, Esquire, Traber & Voorhees, Pasadena, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before: D.W. NELSON, REINHARDT, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
The parties' joint request that the above-captioned appellate proceedings be dismissed as moot is GRANTED.
This case is hereby DISMISSED. All parties shall bear their own attorneys fees and costs on appeal.
A certified copy of this order sent to the district court shall act as and for the mandate of this court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
658 F.3d 888, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cintas-corporation-v-abel-ca9-2011.