Merrifield et al v. Lockyer et al

Filing 166

USCA ORDER: The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied. No further petitions for panel rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc may be filed; re 159 Notice of Appeal byAlan Merrifield, Urban Wildlife Management, Inc., California Nuisance Wildlife Control Operators Association (aaa, Court Staff) (Filed on 1/9/2009)

Case: 05-16613

01/06/2009

Page: 1 of 2

DktEntry: 6757505

F IL E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAN 06 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U . S . C O U R T OF APPE A L S

A L A N MERRIFIELD, an individual; U R B A N WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN C ., a California corporation individually as successor in interest to Alan Merrifield d b a Urban Wildlife Management; C A L IF O R N IA NUISANCE WILDLIFE C O N T R O L OPERATORS A S S O C IA T IO N , a California non-profit c o r p o r a tio n , Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. B IL L LOCKYER, Attorney General, Defendant, and K E L L I OKUMA, Registrar of the C alifo rn ia Structural Pest Control Board; G R E T C H E N A. BRIGAMAN, Protest O fficer of the California Department of T r an s p o r ta tio n ; JEAN MELTON, Member o f the California Structured Pest Control B o ard ; BILL MORRIS, Member of the C alifo rn ia Structural Pest Control Board; M IC H A E L ROTH, Member of the C alifo rn ia Structural Pest Control Board; M U S T A P H A SESAY, Member of the C alifo rn ia Structural Pest Control Board; T H U R M A N , Member of the California S tru ctu ral Pest Control Board; KENNETH

N o . 05-16613 D .C . No. CV-04-00498-MMC N o rth ern District of California, San Francisco

ORDER

Case: 05-16613

01/06/2009

Page: 2 of 2

DktEntry: 6757505

L . TRONGO Member of the California S tru ctu ral Pest Control Board, Defendants - Appellees.

B efo re: O'SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges. T h e panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing and to deny the p etitio n for rehearing en banc. Judges O'Scannlain and Wardlaw voted to deny the p etitio n for rehearing and to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge H aw k in s voted to grant the petition for panel rehearing and to grant the petition for r eh e a rin g en banc. T h e full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no ju d g e has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P . 35. T h e petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are d en ied . No further petitions for panel rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc m ay be filed.

2