Cases

638 F.3d 703 (2011) Michael HUNT and Matthew Dowd, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. Nos. 09-55750, 99-55765. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted November 5, 2010. Filed March 22, 2011. *706 Stephen F. Rohde, Rohde &

601 F.Supp.2d 1158 (2009) Michael HUNT and Matthew Dowd, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal corporation, Defendant. Case No. CV 06-04691 DDP (SSx). United States District Court, C.D. California. January 14, 2009. *1160 Stephen F. Rohde, Rohde & Victoroff, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs. Todd T. Leung, Off

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CITY OF LOS ANGELES, No. 18-56292 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:17-cv-07215- R-JC WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General; ALAN R. HANSON, in his official capacity as Acting Assistant OPINION Attorney General of the Office of Just

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PETER LEE, individual; MIRI PARK, No. 15-55478 individual; HO SAM PARK, individual; GENEY KIM, individual; D.C. No. YONAH HONG, individual, 2:12-cv-06618- Plaintiffs-Appellants, CBM-JCG v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee. STANLEY HAVERILAND, individual; No. 15-55502 THEODORE THOMAS, individual;

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RACHEL SCANLON; STEVEN No. 21-55999 SAWYER, individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for K.X. and G.X.; D.C. No. K. X., a minor; G. X., a minor, 2:18-cv-07759- CBM-AS Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. OPINION COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; LOURDES OLARTE; MARISOL GONZALEZ; AN

ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR COSTS SUZANNE H. SEGAL, United States Magistrate Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On January 30, 2014, trial in this matter was held. The Court previously adjudicated several issues in an Order resolving the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment (“MSJ Order”)

KLEINFELD, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting: Gantt and Smith did not get a fair trial. We therefore caused their convictions to be vacated. The evidence against them was weak, so when one of the prosecutor’s three main witnesses changed his story in the middle of Gantt’s second trial, the prosecutor dismissed. Both are now free, and further prosecution is barred. Their guilt or innocence, and the fairness of th

Opinion SORTING, J.* Appellant in this case is the City of Los Angeles (City). Respondents are various collectives and individual members of collectives (Collectives) currently engaged in the cultivation, distribution, or use of medical marijuana within City limits.1 In the court below, the Collectives *1324</

3/1/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES B309416 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, et al., (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. Petitioners, 20STCP03881,

186 Cal.App.4th 537 (2010) 111 Cal. Rptr. 3d 843 CITY OF ALHAMBRA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. B218347. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three. July 7, 2010. *540 Colantuono & Levin, Michael G. Colantuono an

Opinion JOHNSON, J. In 2008, the City of Los Angeles (City) passed an ordinance amending section 53.15.2 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (Ordinance) to require all dogs and cats within the City to be spayed or neutered unless one of the listed exemptions is met. The City adopted the Ordinance with the intent of controlling the rising pet population in the City. Plaintiffs Concerned Dog

168 Cal.App.4th 422 (2008) CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Petitioner, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; BRENDAN J. COLLINS et al., Real Parties in Interest. No. B207298. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three. November 18, 2008. *424 Rockard J.

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LOS ANGELES PRESS CLUB; No. 25-5975 NEWSGUILD - COMMUNICATIONS D.C. No. WORKERS OF AMERICA; SEAN 2:25-cv-05563- BECKNER-CARMITCHEL; RYANNE HDV-E MENA; LEXIS-OLIVIER RAY; CHARLES XU; BENJAMIN ADAM CLIMER; ABIGAIL OLMEDA, OP

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JONATHAN MICHAEL CASTRO, No. 12-56829 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 2:10-05425-DSF COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; LOS ANGELES SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; OPINION CHRISTOPHER SOLOMON; DAVID VALENTINE, Sergeant, aka Valentine, D

Opinion by Judge GILMAN; Concurrence by Judge CALLAHAN; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge GRABER. ORDER The opinion, concurrence, and partial concurrence and partial dissent filed May 1, 2015, and published at 785 F.3d 336, are withdrawn and are replaced by the opinion, concurrence, and partial concurrence and partial dissent filed concurrently with this order. As the court’s opinion is withdrawn, Ap

Filed 11/29/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR JENNALYN SANTOS et al., B278391 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC589742) v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Cour

176 Cal.App.4th 889 (2009) CITY OF LONG BEACH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. B207721. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three. July 16, 2009. *894 Robert E. Shannon, City Attorney, Michael J. Mais, Assistant City Attorney; Richards,

181 Cal.App.4th 218 (2009) 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 230 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; CHARLES WILLIAM WEST et al., Real Parties in Interest. No. B214842. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three. December 23, 2009. As modified January 22, 2010.

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AIRLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS No. 15-55571 ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-08977- and JFW-PJW AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC., DBA Airlines of America, Plaintiff, v. LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS; CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

ORDER Appellants’ petitions for panel rehearing are GRANTED with respect to their request that the court amend its opinion to affirm the district court’s denial of leave to amend but DENIED in all other respects. The petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No future petitions will be entertained. The opinion filed on August 23, 2017 is withdrawn and a new opinion is filed concurrently with