Castellanos-Contrera, et al v. Decatur Hotels, L.L.C., et al

Filing

EN BANC PUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [07-30942 Reversed and Remanded] Judge: JLD, dissenting, joined fully by JWE, and joined in Sections I and II only by CDK, WED, CES, and ECP; Judge: CH Authoring, joined by EHJ, EGJ, JES, EMG, FPB, PRO, and LHS in full, joined by CDK, WED, CES and ECP as to Section III.A. only; Mandate pull date is 10/22/2010 [07-30942]

Castellanos-Contrera, et al v. Decatur Hotels, L.L.C., et al

Doc. 0 Att. 2

Case: 07-30942

Document: 00511251357

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/01/2010

United States Court of Appeals
F IF T H C IR C U IT O F F I C E O F TH E C L E R K LYLE W . CAYCE CLERK T E L . 504-310-7700 6 0 0 S. M A E S T R I PLA C E N E W O R L E A N S , LA 70130

October 01, 2010 MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES LISTED BELOW Regarding: Fifth Circuit Statement on Petitions for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc

No. 07-30942, Castellanos-Contrera, et al v. Decatur Hotels, L.L.C., et al USDC No. 2:06-CV-4340 --------------------------------------------------Enclosed is a copy of the court's decision. The court has entered judgment under FED. R. APP. P. 36. (However, the opinion may yet contain typographical or printing errors which are subject to correction.) FED. R. APP. P. 39 through 41, and 5T H CIR. RULES 35, 39, and 41 govern costs, rehearings, and mandates. 5T H CIR. RULES 35 and 40 require you to attach to your petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc an unmarked copy of the court's opinion or order. Please read carefully the Internal Operating Procedures (IOP's) following FED. R. APP. P. 40 and 5T H CIR. R. 35 for a discussion of when a rehearing may be appropriate, the legal standards applied and sanctions which may be imposed if you make a nonmeritorious petition for rehearing en banc. Direct Criminal Appeals . 5T H CIR. R. 41 provides that a motion for a stay of mandate under FED. R. APP. P. 41 will not be granted simply upon request. The petition must set forth good cause for a stay or clearly demonstrate that a substantial question will be presented to the Supreme Court. Otherwise, this court may deny the motion and issue the mandate immediately. Pro Se Cases . If you were unsuccessful in the district court and/or on appeal, and are considering filing a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, you do not need to file a motion for stay of mandate under FED. R. APP. P. 41. The issuance of the mandate does not affect the time, or your right, to file with the Supreme Court. The judgment entered provides that Plaintiffs-Appellees pay to Defendants-Appellants the costs on appeal. Sincerely, LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk By:_________________________ Jamei R. Cheramie, Deputy Clerk

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 07-30942

Document: 00511251357

Page: 2

Date Filed: 10/01/2010

Enclosures Mrs. Mary Bauer Mr. William H Beardall Jr. Ms. Leslie W. Ehret Ms. Diane Arlene Heim Ms. Ellen Shirer Kovach Mr. Joseph Nicholas Mole Honorable Ann Margaret Pointer Mr. Keith M Pyburn Jr. Ms. Suzanne Marie Risey Ms. Jennifer Jean Rosenbaum Ms. Catherine K Ruckelshaus Mr. Timothy Hugh Scott Mr. John Eugene Thompson Mr. Edward J Tuddenham Ms. Tracie L. Washington