PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION V. CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS, No. 16-16997 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on May 16, 2018.
Download PDF
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD: SHASTADIABLO, INC., DBA Planned Parenthood Northern California; PLANNED PARENTHOOD MAR MONTE, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE PACIFIC SOUTHWEST; PLANNED PARENTHOOD LOS ANGELES; PLANNED PARENTHOOD/ORANGE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SANTA BARBARA, VENTURA AND SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTIES, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD PASADENA AND SAN GABRIEL VALLEY, INC.; PLANNED PARENTHOOD CENTER FOR CHOICE; PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS; PLANNED PARENTHOOD GULF COAST, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. No. 16-16997 D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00236WHO ORDER AMENDING CONCURRENCE 2 PLANNED PARENTHOOD V. CTR. FOR MED. PROGRESS CENTER FOR MEDICAL PROGRESS; BIOMAX PROCUREMENT SERVICES, LLC; DAVID DALEIDEN, AKA Robert Daoud Sarkis; SANDRA SUSAN MERRITT, AKA Susan Tennenbaum; GERARDO ADRIAN LOPEZ, Defendants-Appellants, and TROY NEWMAN; PHILLIP S. CRONIN; ALBIN RHOMBERG, Defendants. Filed August 1, 2018 Before: Ronald M. Gould and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges, and Nancy Freudenthal, * Chief District Judge. * The Honorable Nancy Freudenthal, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation. PLANNED PARENTHOOD V. CTR. FOR MED. PROGRESS 3 ORDER The concurrence opinion in the above-captioned matter filed on May 16, 2018, and published at 890 F.3d 828, is amended as follows: At opinion page 838, delete the sentence: <I respectfully suggest that we should take this opportunity to fix this error in our court’s precedent with a call of the case en banc.> And replace the deleted sentence with: <Although the propriety of interlocutory appeals for denials of anti-SLAPP motions was not briefed by the parties in this case, I respectfully suggest that we take the opportunity to fix this error in the future.> The Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc remains pending. IT IS SO ORDERED.
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.
