ALDF v. FDA

ALDF v. FDA

Plaintiff - Appellant,:	ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
Defendant - Appellee,:	FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
Case Number:	13-17131
Filed:	October 23, 2013
Court:	U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit:	Freedom of Information Act of 1974

Opinions

We have the following opinions for this case:

Date Filed	Description
April 11, 2016	ALDF V. FDA
August 3, 2016	ALDF V. FDA
September 2, 2016	ALDF V. FDA
September 30, 2016	ALDF V. FDA

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
September 2, 2016	Filing 9028343830 Filed per curiam opinion (SIDNEY R. THOMAS, STEPHEN REINHARDT, ALEX KOZINSKI, RONALD M. GOULD, RICHARD A. PAEZ, RICHARD C. TALLMAN, JAY S. BYBEE, MILAN D. SMITH, JR., MORGAN B. CHRISTEN, JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN and JOHN B. OWENS)We confine our en banc consideration to the question of controlling circuit precedent. We decline as an en banc court to reach any other issue presented by the parties. The threejudge panel that heard the appeal was bound by the standard articulated in Church of Scientology and issued its opinion based on that assumption. In issuing our order granting rehearing en banc, we declared that the three-judge panel opinion should not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. FDA, F.3d , No. 13-17131, 2016 WL 4120696 (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2016). With this correction of our precedent, en banc proceedings with respect to this case are terminated, and we return control of the case to the three-judge panel. The panel will resolve the merits issues in this case and will issue a new or an amended opinion.3 REMANDED. [10110912]

Date Filed

Document Text

September 2, 2016

Filing 9028343830 Filed per curiam opinion (SIDNEY R. THOMAS, STEPHEN REINHARDT, ALEX KOZINSKI, RONALD M. GOULD, RICHARD A. PAEZ, RICHARD C. TALLMAN, JAY S. BYBEE, MILAN D. SMITH, JR., MORGAN B. CHRISTEN, JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN and JOHN B. OWENS)We confine our en banc consideration to the question of controlling circuit precedent. We decline as an en banc court to reach any other issue presented by the parties. The threejudge panel that heard the appeal was bound by the standard articulated in Church of Scientology and issued its opinion based on that assumption. In issuing our order granting rehearing en banc, we declared that the three-judge panel opinion should not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit. Animal Legal Def. Fund v. FDA, F.3d , No. 13-17131, 2016 WL 4120696 (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2016). With this correction of our precedent, en banc proceedings with respect to this case are terminated, and we return control of the case to the three-judge panel. The panel will resolve the merits issues in this case and will issue a new or an amended opinion.3 REMANDED. [10110912]

Access additional case information on PACER

Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Search for this case: ALDF v. FDA
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff - appellant,: ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
Represented By:	Monte M. F. Cooper
Represented By:	Carter J. Dillard
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant - appellee,: FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
Represented By:	Victoria Rose Carradero
Represented By:	Dara Smith
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?