WENDY THOMAS V. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S, No. 12-55470 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on August 18, 2014.

Download PDF

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WENDY THOMAS; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 721; Plaintiffs-Appellants/ Cross-Appellees, Nos. 12-55470 12-55812 D.C. No. 5:10-CV-01846VAP-DTB v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; LARRY GROTEFEND, individually; DENNIS ERICK SCHERTELL, individually; RICK HALL, individually; BRIAN MCARTHUR, individually; HEATHER WOODS, individually; MARGIE GEMENDE, individually; ORDER Defendants-Appellees/ Cross-Appellants. Filed January 8, 2015 Before: Alex Kozinski and Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judges, and Jed S. Rakoff, Senior District Judge.* * The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 2 THOMAS V. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ORDER The Opinion filed on August 18, 2014, and published at 763 F.3d 1167, is hereby amended as follows: On page 9 of the slip opinion, replace “moot.1” with “moot as to the County of Riverside, Grotefend, Schertell, Hall, and Woods.1 With regards to Gemende and McArthur, we remand for the district court to determine whether they are entitled to attorneys’ fees in light of the lack of evidence that they had any supervisory authority over Thomas.” With this amendment, the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judges Kozinski and Clifton vote to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Rakoff so recommends. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge of the court has requested a vote on en banc rehearing. See Fed. R. App. P. 35(f). The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. No further petitions for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.