Richard Stengel v. Medtronic Incorporated

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Richard Stengel v. Medtronic Incorporated. Read the opinion of the Court — 704 F.3d 1224 →

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided July 25, 2012·No. 10-17755·Published

Opinion

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD STENGEL; MARY LOU  STENGEL, No. 10-17755 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.  D.C. No. 4:10-cv-00318-RCC MEDTRONIC INCORPORATED, a foreign corporation, ORDER Defendant-Appellee.  Filed July 25, 2012

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.

Judges Wardlaw, Murguia and Hurwitz did not participate in the deliberations or vote as to whether the case should be taken en banc.

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

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:

Judges Wardlaw, Murguia and Hurwitz did not participate in the deliberations or vote as to whether the case should be taken en banc.

Richard Stengel v. Medtronic Incorporated, (9th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Richard Stengel v. Medtronic Incorporated (Richard Stengel v. Medtronic Incorporated) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.