Paulette Smith v. Edward Agdeppa

Ninth Circuit

Paulette Smith v. Edward Agdeppa

94 F.4th 903

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 1, 2024

Docket20-56254

StatusPublished

This text of 94 F.4th 903 (Paulette Smith v. Edward Agdeppa) 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.

Bluebook

Paulette Smith v. Edward Agdeppa, 94 F.4th 903 (9th Cir. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAULETTE SMITH, individually and No. 20-56254 as Successor in Interest to Albert Dorsey, deceased, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05370- Plaintiff-Appellee, CAS-JC

v. ORDER

EDWARD AGDEPPA, an individual,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal entity; DOES, 1 through 10,

Defendants.

Filed March 1, 2024

Before: Consuelo M. Callahan, Morgan Christen, and Daniel A. Bress, Circuit Judges.

Order 2 SMITH V. AGDEPPA

ORDER

Judge Callahan and Judge Bress voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Christen voted to grant the 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 the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35(a). Appellee’s petition for rehearing en banc, Dkt. 65, is DENIED.

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