Jane Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
This text of Jane Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (Jane Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc.) 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
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JANE DOE, No. 22-16562
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:19-cv- 03310-JSC v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; ORDER RASIER, LLC; RASIER CA, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees.
Filed January 13, 2025
Before: Susan P. Graber, Richard A. Paez, and Michelle T. Friedland, Circuit Judges.
Order 2 DOE V. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
ORDER
The majority memorandum disposition filed on August 8, 2024, is hereby amended. The dissent has not been amended. The amended memorandum will be filed and the dissent re-filed concurrently with this order. With the filing of the amended memorandum, the petition for panel rehearing (Dkt. 87) is DENIED. Judge Graber voted to grant the petition. A judge of the court requested a vote on en banc rehearing. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc rehearing. Fed. R. App. P. 40(c). Judges Gould, Miller, and VanDyke did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case. Appellees’ petition for rehearing en banc (Dkt. 87) is thus DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing shall be filed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jane Doe v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jane-doe-v-uber-technologies-inc-ca9-2025.