NOELLE LEE V. ROBERT FISHER

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in NOELLE LEE V. ROBERT FISHER. Read the opinion of the Court — 70 F.4th 1129
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided October 24, 2022·No. 21-15923·Published

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NOELLE LEE, derivatively on behalf of The No. 21-15923 Gap, Inc, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-06163-SK Plaintiff-Appellant, Northern District of California, San Francisco

v.

ORDER

ROBERT J. FISHER; SONIA SYNGAL; ARTHUR PECK; AMY BOHUTINSKY; AMY MILES; ISABELLA D. GOREN; BOB L. MARTIN; CHRIS O'NEILL; ELIZABETH A. SMITH; JOHN J. FISHER; JORGE P. MONTOYA; MAYO A. SHATTUCK III; TRACY GARDNER; WILLIAM S. FISHER; DORIS F. FISHER; THE GAP, INC., Nominal Defendant,

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

NOELLE LEE V. ROBERT FISHER, (9th Cir. 2022).

NOELLE LEE V. ROBERT FISHER (NOELLE LEE V. ROBERT FISHER) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.