MOUNTAIN WEST HOLDING CO. V. STATE OF MONTANA, No. 14-36097 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on May 16, 2017.
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 27 2017 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOUNTAIN WEST HOLDING CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, No. MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-36097 D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00049-DLC v. ORDER AMENDING THE STATE OF MONTANA; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and PATTI MCCUBBINS, MDT’s Civil Rights Bureau Chief and DBE Liaison Officer; named only in her official capacity, Defendant. MOUNTAIN WEST HOLDING CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE STATE OF MONTANA; et al., Defendants-Appellants, and No. 15-35003 D.C. No. 1:13-cv-00049-DLC PATTI MCCUBBINS, MDT’s Civil Rights Bureau Chief and DBE Liaison Officer; named only in her official capacity, Defendant. Before: LEAVY and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ,* District Judge. The final sentence on page 5, paragraph 3 of the Memorandum Disposition filed on May 16, 2017 is amended to read as follows: “Although the report was authenticated after it was filed, the district court made a reasonable decision to admit and consider it, and it seems Montana suffered no prejudice as a result.” With that amendment, the panel unanimously votes to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge Friedland has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judges Leavy and Benitez recommend denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions shall be entertained. * The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. Mountain West Holding Company’s request to designate the Memorandum Disposition for publication is also DENIED.
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.
