Lydia Olson v. State of California

88 F.4th 781
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided December 18, 2023·No. 21-55757·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LYDIA OLSON; MIGUEL PEREZ; No. 21-55757 POSTMATES, INC., (Successor Postmates LLC); UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., D.C. No. 2:19-cv-10956-DMG-RAO Plaintiffs-Appellants, Central District of California, Los Angeles v. ORDER STATE OF CALIFORNIA; ROB BONTA, in his capacity as Attorney General of the State of California,

Defendants-Appellees.

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 35(a)

and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion is vacated.

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

Lydia Olson v. State of California, 88 F.4th 781 (9th Cir. 2023).

88 F.4th 781 (Lydia Olson v. State of California) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lydia Olson v. State of California
104 F.4th 66 (Ninth Circuit, 2024)