Keo Ratha v. Rubicon Resources, LLC

129 F.4th 1212
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Keo Ratha v. Rubicon Resources, LLC. Read the opinion of the Court — 111 F.4th 946
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided March 4, 2025·No. 23-55299·Published

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 4 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEO RATHA; SEM KOSAL; SOPHEA No. 23-55299 BUN; YEM BAN; NOL NAKRY; PHAN SOPHEA; SOK SANG, D.C. No.

2:16-cv-04271-JFW-AS

Plaintiffs-Appellants, Central District of California, Los Angeles

v.

ORDER

RUBICON RESOURCES, LLC,

Defendant-Appellee.

MURGUIA, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that

this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(c)

and Circuit Rule 40-3. The three-judge panel opinion is vacated.

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

Keo Ratha v. Rubicon Resources, LLC, 129 F.4th 1212 (9th Cir. 2025).

129 F.4th 1212 (Keo Ratha v. Rubicon Resources, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related