REYNALDO GONZALEZ, ET AL V. GOOGLE LLC, No. 18-16700 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Anti-Terrorism Act. The panel remanded this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 143 S. Ct. 1191 (2023) (per curiam).
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 22, 2021.
Download PDF
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REYNALDO GONZALEZ; THE ESTATE OF NOHEMI GONZALEZ; BEATRIZ GONZALEZ, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Nohemi Gonzalez; JOSE HERNANDEZ; REY GONZALEZ; PAUL GONZALEZ, No. 18-16700 D.C. No. 4:16cv-03282-DMR Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GOOGLE, LLC, Defendant-Appellee. On Remand from the United States Supreme Court Filed July 3, 2023 Before: Ronald M. Gould, Marsha S. Berzon, and Morgan Christen, Circuit Judges. Order 2 GONZALEZ V. GOOGLE SUMMARY * Anti-Terrorism Act The panel remanded this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 143 S. Ct. 1191 (2023) (per curiam). COUNSEL Keith L. Altman (argued), The Law Office of Keith Altman, Farmington Hills, Michigan; Daniel W. Weininger, Excolo Law, Southfield, Michigan, for Plaintiff-Appellant Reynaldo Gonzalez. Robert J. Tolchin (argued) and Meir Katz, The Berkman Law Office LLC, Brooklyn, New York, for PlaintiffsAppellants the Estate of Nohemi Gonzalez, Beatriz Gonzalez, Jose Hernandez, Rey Gonzalez, and Paul Gonzalez. Brian M. Willen (argued), Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati New York, New York; David H. Kramer and Kelly M. Knoll, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto, California; Lauren Gallo White, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, San Francisco, California; Paul Harold and Steffen N. Johnson, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Washington, D.C.; for Defendant-Appellee. This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. * GONZALEZ V. GOOGLE 3 Aaron D. Mackley and Sophia Cope, Electronic Frontier Foundation, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation. Yavar Bathaee, Bathaee Dunne LLP, Austin, Texas; Brian J. Dunne, Bathaee Dunne LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Amici Curiae Artificial Intelligence Law and Policy Institute. ORDER This case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 143 S. Ct. 1191 (2023) (per curiam).
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.
