Cases

OPINION W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs, current and former employees of Amgen, Inc. (“Amgen”) and its subsidiary Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (“AML”), participated in two employer-sponsored pension plans, the Amgen Retirement and Savings. Plan (the “Amgen Plan”) and the Retirement and Savings Plan for Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (the “AML Plan”) (c

875 A.2d 823 (2005) 162 Md. App. 616 Nona K. CHRISTENSEN, et al. v. PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., et al. No. 02136 Sept. Term, 2003. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. June 8, 2005. *824 Edward J. Lilly (Theodore M. Flerlage, Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, on the brief), Baltimore, MD, for appellant.

Judge KOZINSKI, with whom Judges O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN and BEA join, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc: The Supreme Court has previously admonished us for ignoring a grant, vacate and remand (GVR) order and “reinstating [our] judgment without seriously confronting the significance of the cases called to [our] attention.” Cavazos v. Smith, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2, 7, 181 L.Ed.2d 311

OPINION W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs, current and former employees of Amgen, Inc. (“Amgen”) and its subsidiary Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (“AML”), participated in two employer-sponsored pension plans, the Amgen Retirement and Savings Plan (the “Amgen Plan”) and the Retirement and Savings Plan for Amgen Manufacturing, Limited (the “AML Plan”)

ORDER The opinion filed on June 4, 2013, and published at 717 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir.2013), is withdrawn and replaced by the attached opinion. With the filing of the new opinion, the panel has voted unanimously to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Fletcher has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judges Farris and Kor-man so recommend. <

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEVE HARRIS; DENNIS F. RAMOS, No. 10-56014 AKA Dennis Ramos; DONALD HANKS; JORGE TORRES; ALBERT D.C. No. CAPPA, On Behalf of Themselves 2:07-cv-05442- and All Others Similarly Situated, PSG-PLA Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ORDER AND AMENDED AMGEN, INC.; AMGEN

877 A.2d 1111 (2005) 163 Md. App. 98 Howard L. ROSOV, D.D.S. v. MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS. No. 540, September Term, 2004. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland. July 6, 2005. *1114 Pamela J. Diedrick, (Roy L. Mason, Mason, Cawood & Hobbs, PA on the brief), Annapolis, for Appellant.

(2008) AMGEN, INC., Plaintiff, v. F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE LTD., Roche Diagnostics GmbH, and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Defendants. Civil Action No. 05-12237-WGY. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. October 2, 2008. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WILLIAM G. YOUNG, District Judge. Amgen Inc. ("Amgen") sought declaratory relief to prevent F.

307 F.Supp.2d 947 (2004) In re DPL INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION. No. 3:02cv355. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division. March 8, 2004. James Rubin Cummins, Stanley Morris Chesley, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co. LPA, Cincinnati, OH, Lawrence D. McCabe, Richard H. Weiss, Steven G Schulman, Uri Seth Ottensoser, Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes &

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JACK B. WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge: I.Introduction...............................................................347 II.Facts.....................................................................349 A. Defendant’s Childhood..................................................349

544 F.Supp.2d 1009 (2008) In re AMGEN INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. Mendell v. Amgen, Inc. et al. Jaffe v. Amgen, Inc. et al. Elden v. Amgen Inc. et al. Rosenfield v. Amgen Inc. et al. Public Employees' Retirement Association of Colorado v. Amgen Inc. et al. Case Nos. CV 07-2536 PSG (PLAx), CV 07-2849 PSG (PLAx), CV 07-2865 PSG (PLAx), CV 07-3145 PSG (PLAx), CV 07-3320 PSG (P

Eberly, J. Bessie McWilliams instituted this action against William Griffin and Sidney R. Lang, to recover for personal injuries received in an automobile accident occurring on May 4, 1935, in the city of Lincoln, at the bridge across Oak creek on North Tenth street. Defendants joined issue, and trial was had to a jury resulting in a judgment for plaintiff and against the defendants. From the order of the trial court overrulin

PROVOSTY, C. J. Plaintiff sues under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Laws 1914, No. 20) for the death of her husband, and the *825defense is that he was not an employé but an independent contractor. , Defendant owns and operates a sawmill, and owns timbered swamp lands for supplying the mill with logs. The logs are floated to the mill, after having bee

Opinion by Rice, P. J., The plaintiff is the owner of a lot, with a three-storied dwelling house thereon, situate on the east side of Lawrence street, in the city of Philadelphia, and under his deed has the right to the use of, and the right to build over, an alley, twenty-two inches in -width, laid out and opened for the accommodation of his premises and the adjoining premises on the north. At the height of ab