Patel v. City of L.A., 08–56567.
Citation | 708 F.3d 1075 |
Decision Date | 13 February 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 08–56567.,08–56567. |
Parties | Naranjibhai PATEL; Ramilaben Patel, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation, Defendant–Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Frank Alan Weiser, Esquire, Independent Counsel, Law Offices of Frank A. Weiser, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.
Todd Leung, Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant–Appellee.
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 shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Maxwell v. Cnty. of San Diego
... ... The due process clause guarantees the right to bodily security. Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir.2006). The Maxwells contend that the Sheriff's ... ...
- United States v. 1309 Fourth St.
-
United States v. Garibay
... ... Defendant also raises a conclusory challenge of the search of his vehicle under Patel v. City of L. A., 686 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2012), rehearing en banc granted, 708 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir ... ...
-
Beitch v. Magnus
... ... We review de novo the district ... court's grant of summary judgment. See Bravo v. City ... of Santa Maria, 665 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011). We ... affirm ... ...