Oregon Restaurant and Lodging v. Thomas Perez

843 F.3d 355, 26 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1701, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16361
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided September 6, 2016·No. 13-35765, 14-15243·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

Dissent by Judge O’SCANNLAIN

ORDER

Judges Pregerson and Owens have voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge Owens has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc,, and Judge Pre-gerson has so recommended. Judge N.R. Smith has voted to grant the petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc.

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 votes of the nonrecused active judges [356]*356in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35.

The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are - DENIED.

The order filed on April 1, 2016 denying rehearing in Cesarz v. Wynn Las Vegas is hereby amended to reflect this subsequent en banc activity, including the dissent from denial of rehearing.

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

Oregon Restaurant and Lodging v. Thomas Perez, 843 F.3d 355, 26 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 1701, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16361 (9th Cir. 2016).

843 F.3d 355 (Oregon Restaurant and Lodging v. Thomas Perez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related