ROBERT CRITCHLOW V. KATE CRITCHLOW, No. 13-15572 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 11, 2015.
Download PDF
FILED JUL 16 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT CRITCHLOW, MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 13-15572 v. D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01198-LB Northern District of California, San Francisco KATE E. CRITCHLOW and BARBARA L. WANER, ORDER Plaintiff - Appellant, Defendants - Appellees. Before: SCHROEDER, D.W. NELSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. The memorandum disposition filed on June 11, 2015, is hereby amended by deleting the third sentence of the second paragraph, and replacing it with: “Accordingly, the court’s decision to take judicial notice of these documents did not convert Kate Critchlow’s and John Waner’s motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment.” With this amendment, the panel has unanimously voted to deny appellant’s petition for rehearing. Judge Ikuta voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge Schroeder and Judge Nelson so recommended. The petition for rehearing en banc was circulated to the judges of the court, and no judge requested a vote for en banc consideration. The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The panel will not consider any further petitions for rehearing in response to the amended memorandum disposition. 2
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.
