DAVID WIT, ET AL V. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, No. 20-17363 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on March 22, 2022.
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JAN 26 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID WIT; et al., U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 20-17363 21-15193 Plaintiffs-Appellees, LINDA TILLITT; MARY JONES, Intervenor-PlaintiffsAppellees, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-02346-JCS Northern District of California, San Francisco ORDER v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant-Appellant. GARY ALEXANDER, on his own behalf and on behalf of his beneficiary son, Jordan Alexander; et al., Nos. 20-17364 21-15194 D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05337-JCS Plaintiffs-Appellees, MICHAEL DRISCOLL, Intervenor-PlaintiffAppellee, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant-Appellant. Before: CHRISTEN and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and ANELLO,* District Judge. The memorandum disposition filed on March 22, 2022, is withdrawn and replaced with the concurrently filed opinion. The pending petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc [97], and amicus curiae motions [101, 105, & 112] are DENIED as moot. The court permits the parties to file subsequent petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. * The Honorable Michael M. Anello, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. 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.
