STATUS OF PENDING EN BANC CASES

 

May 4, 2018

This report is provided for case identification and background information only and does not reflect the views of the court. When a case is heard or reheard en banc, the en banc court assumes jurisdiction over the entire case, see 28 U.S.C. § 46(c), regardless of the issue or issues that may have caused any member of the Court to vote to hear the case en banc. Summerlin v. Stewart, 309 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2002).  In those cases where the parties have filed petitions for rehearing en banc and oppositions, you can access the pdfs by clicking the case title.

 

Andrews v. Davis, Nos. 09-99012+

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 886 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2017)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  2018 WL 1959639 (9th Cir. Apr. 26, 2018)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  April 26, 2018

Status:   To be calendared week of September 24, 2018, in Pasadena, California

Members of En Banc Court:  Not yet available

Subject Matter:   Appeal from the district court's denial of all but one of the claims raised in California state prisoner Jesse James Andrews's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and cross-appeal by state from the district court's grant of relief on Andrews's claim that his counsel's assistance was ineffective at the penalty phase of his capital murder trial. 

Holding: Not yet decided

 

Marinelarena v. Sessions, No. 14-72003

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 869 F.3d 780 (9th Cir. 2017)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  886 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. 2018)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  March 29, 2018

Status:   To be calendared week of September 24, 2018, in Pasadena, California

Members of En Banc Court:  Not yet available

Subject Matter:   Petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision finding petitioner Aracely Marinelarena ineligible for cancellation of removal because she had failed to meet her burden of proof to show that her conviction was not for a disqualifying controlled substance offense.   

Holding: Not yet decided

 

Marsh v. J. Alexander's LLC, Nos. 15-15791+

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 869 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2017)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  2018 WL 913130 (9th Cir. Feb. 16, 2018)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  February 16, 2018

Status:   Argued and submitted March 20, 2018, at 10:30 a.m., in San Francisco, California

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Thomas, Judges Graber, McKeown, Wardlaw, W. Fletcher, Paez, Rawlinson, Callahan, Ikuta, Christen, and Hurwitz

Subject Matter:   Appeal from the district court’s final orders and judgments in favor of the defendants in actions brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act by former servers and bartenders who alleged that their employers improperly claimed their tips as a credit toward the required minimum wage. 

Holding: Not yet decided

  

Am. Beverage Association v. City and County of San Francisco, Nos. 16-16072+

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 871 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2017)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  880 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2018)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  January 29, 2018

Status:   Not yet calendared

Members of En Banc Court:  Not yet available

Subject Matter:   Appeal from the district court’s denial of the plaintiff Associations’ motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to enjoin the implementation of the City and County of San Francisco’s ordinance that would require warnings about the health effects of certain sugar-sweetened beverages on specific types of fixed advertising within San Francisco. 

Holding: Not yet decided

 

Ibrahim v. US Dep't of Homeland Security, Nos. 14-16161+

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 835 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2016)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  878 F.3d 703 (9th Cir. 2017)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  December 29, 2017

Status:   Argued and submitted March 20, 2018, at 1:00 p.m., in San Francisco, California

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Thomas, Judges McKeown, Wardlaw, W. Fletcher, Berzon, Callahan, M. Smith, N.R. Smith, Christen, Nguyen, and Watford

Subject Matter:   Appeal from the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983). 

Holding: Not yet decided

 

Rizo v. Yovino, No. 16-15372

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 854 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2017)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  869 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2017)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  August 29, 2017

En Banc Opinion:  887 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2018)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  April 9, 2018

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Thomas, Judges Reinhardt, McKeown, W. Fletcher, Paez, Berzon, Tallman, Callahan, Murguia, Christen, and Watford

Subject Matter:   Appeal from the district court’s order denying the defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment on a claim under the Equal Pay Act. 

Holding:   The en banc court affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment to the defendant on a claim under the Equal Pay Act, and held that prior salary alone or in combination with other factors cannot justify a wage differential between male and female employees.

 

 

G.W. Palmer & Co. v Agricap Financial Corp., Nos. 14-56059, 14-56078

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 850 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 2017)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  868 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2017)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  June 23, 2017

En Banc Opinion:  2018 WL 1003855 (Feb. 22, 2018)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  February 22, 2018

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Thomas, Judges Reinhardt, McKeown, Wardlaw, W. Fletcher, Gould, Callahan, Ikuta, Nguyen, Hurwitz, and Friedland

Subject Matter:   Appeal from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendant in an action brought by produce growers under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. 

Holding:  The en banc court vacated the district court’s summary judgment in favor of defendant AgriCap Financial Corp. in an action brought by produce growers under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, and remanded for further proceedings.

 

 

Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Schurke, No. 13-35574

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 846 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2017)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  869 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 2017)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  June 30, 2017

Status:   Argued and submitted September 19, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., in San Francisco, California

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Thomas, Judges Kozinski, McKeown, Berzon, Tallman, Callahan, Bea, M. Smith, Ikuta, Nguyen, and Hurwitz

Subject Matter:   Appeal from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a labor law suit brought by Alaska Airlines, Inc. 

Holding: Not yet decided

 

FTC v. AT&T Mobility, No. 15-16585

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 835 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2016)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  864 F.3d 995 (9th Cir. 2017)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  May 9, 2017

En Banc Opinion:  2018 WL 1045406 (Feb. 26, 2018)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  February 26, 2018

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Thomas, Judges Reinhardt, Graber, McKeown, W. Fletcher, Rawlinson, M. Smith, N.R. Smith, Nguyen, Watford, and Friedland

Subject Matter:   Appeal from the district court’s denial of AT&T Mobility LLC’s motion to dismiss, and remanded for an entry of an order of dismissal in an action brought by the Federal Trade Commission under section 5 of the FTC Act that took issue with the adequacy of AT&T’s disclosures regarding its data throttling plan, under which AT&T intentionally reduced the data speed of its customers with unlimited mobile data plans.  

Holding:  The en banc court affirmed the district court’s denial of AT&T Mobility’s motion to dismiss an action brought by the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") under Section 5 of the FTC Act, alleging that AT&T’s data-throttling plan was unfair and deceptive.

 

 

Godoy v. Spearman, 13-56024

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 834 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2016)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  855 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2017)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  March 2, 2017

En Banc Opinion:  861 F.3d 956 (9th Cir. 2017)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  June 30, 2017

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Thomas, Judges Wardlaw, Fisher, Gould, Berzon, Rawlinson, M. Smith, N.R. Smith, Watford, Hurwitz, and Friedland

Subject Matter:   Appeal from the district court's denial of a California state prisoner's habeas corpus petition challenging his second-degree murder conviction based on juror misconduct, the denial of an evidentiary hearing, and the denial of a continuance.  

Holding:  The en banc court reversed the district court’s judgment denying a habeas corpus petition in which Enrique Anthony Godoy, who was convicted of second-degree murder, claimed improper outside influence on the jury.

  

United States v. Simon, 15-10203

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 665 F. App'x 597 (9th Cir. 2016)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  854 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2017)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  January 27, 2017

En Banc Opinion:  858 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 2017)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  June 8, 2017

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Thomas, Judges W. Fletcher, Gould, Berzon, Bybee, Bea, Ikuta, Murguia, Nguyen, Hurwitz, and Friedland

Subject Matter:   Appeal from a jury conviction and sentence for conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, possession of a firearm by a felon, conspiracy to commit theft in an interstate commerce shipment, and theft from an interstate commerce shipment. 

Holding:  The en banc court affirmed a sentence in a case in which the defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery under the Hobbs Act and other federal offenses, and clarified how district courts should apply sentencing enhancements for inchoate offenses.

  

Teixeira v. County of Alameda, 13-17132

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 822 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2016)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  854 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2016)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  December 27, 2016

En Banc Opinion:  2017 WL 4509038 (9th Cir. Oct. 10, 2017)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  October 10, 2017

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Thomas, Judges Reinhardt, McKeown, Gould, Paez, Berzon, Tallman, Bybee, Bea, Watford, and Owens

Subject Matter:   Appeal from the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim of an action brought by individuals wishing to operate a gun shop in Alameda County, California, challenging a County ordinace that does not permit prospective gun shops to be located within 500 feet of a residentially-zoned district. 

Holding: The en banc court affirmed the district court’s dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the County of Alameda violated the Second Amendment when it denied individual plaintiffs conditional use permits to open a gun shop because the proposed location of the shop fell within a prohibited County zone.

  

Feldman v. Arizona, 16-16865

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 842 F.3d 613 (9th Cir. 2016)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  840 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2016)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  November 4, 2016

Status:   Oral argument tentatively rescheduled for the week of December 11, 2017, in San Francisco, California, removed from calendar pending further order of the Court

Members of En Banc Court:  Not yet available

Subject Matter:   Appeal from the district court's order denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in an action challenging Arizona's precinct vote rule, which requires that each voter who votes in person must cast his or her ballot at the precinct polling station at which the voter has registered to vote.  

Holding:  Not yet decided

 

Feldman v. Arizona, 16-16698

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 840 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2016)

Order Taking Case En Banc: 841 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. 2016)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  November 2, 2016

Status:   Oral argument tentatively rescheduled for the week of December 11, 2017, in San Francisco, California, removed from calendar pending further order of the Court

Members of En Banc Court:  Not yet available

Subject Matter:   Appeal from the district court's order denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prohibit the enforcement of Arizona House Bill 2023, which precludes individuals who do not fall into one of several exceptions (e.g. election officials, mail carriers, family members, household members, and specified caregivers) from collecting early ballots from another person.  

Holding: Not yet decided

 

Retail Digital Network v. Gorsuch, 13-56069

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 810 F.3d 638 (9th Cir. 2016)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  842 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  November 16, 2016

En Banc Opinion:  861 F.3d 839 (9th Cir. 2017)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  June 14, 2017

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Thomas, Judges Reinhardt, Kozinski, W. Fletcher, Gould, Paez, Rawlinson, Bybee, M. Smith, Murguia and Watford  

Subject Matter:   Appeal from the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Director of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Council in an action challenging, on First Amendment grounds, a provision of the California Business and Professions Code forbidding manufacturers and wholesalers from giving anything of value to retailers for advertising their alcoholic products.  

Holding:  The en banc court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Acting Director of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control in an action challenging, on First Amendment grounds, California Business and Professions Code § 25503(f)–(h), which prohibits alcohol manufacturers and wholesalers from providing anything of value to retailers in exchange for advertising their alcohol products.

 

 Lowry v. City of San Diego, 13-56141

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 818 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2016)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  837 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2016)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  September 16, 2016

En Banc Opinion:  2017 WL 2434715 (9th Cir. June 6, 2017)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  June 6, 2017

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Thomas, Judges Kozinski, O'Scannlain, Tallman, Rawlinson, Clifton, Bea, Nguyen, Watford, Hurwitz, and Owens  

Subject Matter:   Appeal from district court’s summary judgment in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging that the City of San Diego's policy of training its police dogs to "bite and hold" individuals violates the Fourth Amendment.

Holding:  The en banc court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the City of San Diego in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the City’s policy of training its police dogs to “bite and hold” individuals resulted in a violation of plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights.

  

United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 13-50561+

Three-Judge Panel Opinion: 798 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2015)

Order Taking Case En Banc:  831 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 2016)

Date of Order Taking Case En Banc:  August 5, 2016

En Banc Opinion:  859 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. 2017)

Date of En Banc Opinion:  May 31, 2017

Status:  Cert. granted December 8, 2017

Members of En Banc Court:  Chief Judge Thomas, Judges Schroeder, Reinhardt, Kozinski, O'Scannlain, Silverman, Graber, Paez, Berzon, Callahan, and Ikuta 

Subject Matter:   Appeal from district court’s orders in four cases in which defendants challenged a policy in the Southern District of California whereby United States Marshals place pretrial detainees in full shackle restraints for most appearances before a judge, including arraignments, unless a judge specifically requests the restraints be removed in a particular case.

Holding:  The en banc court denied mandamus relief regarding the United States District Court for the Southern District of California’s policy of routinely shackling all pretrial detainees in the courtroom.