Hudacko v. Regents of the University of California

Ninth Circuit

Hudacko v. Regents of the University of California

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 11, 2026

Docket24-7360

StatusPublished

This text of Hudacko v. Regents of the University of California (Hudacko v. Regents of the University of California) 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.

Bluebook

Hudacko v. Regents of the University of California, (9th Cir. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD ALLYN HUDACKO, No. 24-7360 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:23-cv-05316-SI v. ORDER REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; JANET YI MAN LEE; DIANE EHRENSAFT; STEPHEN ROSENTHAL; ASAF ORR; NATHANIEL BIGGER; DANIEL HARKINS; CHRISTINE UNDERHILL, FKA Christine Hudacko,

Defendants - Appellees.

Filed March 11, 2026

Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, and Daniel A. Bress, Circuit Judges. 2 HUDACKO V. REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CALIFORNIA

ORDER

The panel unanimously voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judges Nguyen and Bress voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge Thomas so recommended. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 40. Judge Tung did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case. The petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc (Dkt. No. 91) are DENIED.

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

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDWARD ALLYN HUDACKO, No. 24-7360 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:23-cv-05316-SI v. ORDER REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; JANET YI MAN LEE; DIANE EHRENSAFT; STEPHEN ROSENTHAL; ASAF ORR; NATHANIEL BIGGER; DANIEL HARKINS; CHRISTINE UNDERHILL, FKA Christine Hudacko,

Defendants - Appellees.

Filed March 11, 2026

Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, and Daniel A. Bress, Circuit Judges. 2 HUDACKO V. REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CALIFORNIA

ORDER

The panel unanimously voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judges Nguyen and Bress voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge Thomas so recommended. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 40. Judge Tung did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case. The petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc (Dkt. No. 91) are DENIED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hudacko v. Regents of the University of California, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudacko-v-regents-of-the-university-of-california-ca9-2026.