Janas

Janas v. McCracken

Good Law
195 F.3d 521·99 Daily Journal DAR 11091·1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 28431·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8658
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 27, 1999Nos. 97-16204, 97-16240California1,538 words

Opinion

Dissenting Opinion

Reinhardt, J.

dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, with whom PREGERSON and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges, join, and with whom MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and GRABER, Circuit Judges, join with respect to Part I:

By failing to take this case en banc, this court appears to endorse a decision of a divided panel that ignores the plain directives of Congress, casts aside the prior decisions of this court, and creates a striking conflict with our fellow circuits. Because I believe that we have a duty to correct an opinion that ignores the authority of Congress’s words, the dictates of stare decisis, and the uniform conclusion of other circuit courts, I dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc.

I.

The excellent dissent from the panel opinion by Judge Browning more than adequately describes the myriad errors made by the panel majority. I write separately only to emphasize a few additional points. First, contrary to the majority’s claim that at the time it wrote “there [was] widespread disagreement among courts as to the proper interpretation of the PSLRA’s pleading requirement,” circuit courts were in fact unanimous about what the statute did not do. As even the majority’s own description of the…

Lead Opinion

ORDER

The panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Browning would grant the petition for rehearing. Judge Sneed and Judge Rhoades recommended rejecting the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Judge Browning voted to accept the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The full court was advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc. An active judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R.App. P. 35(b). Judge Reinhardt dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc, joined by Judges Pregerson and Tashima. Judges Hawkins and Graber join in Part I of Judge Reinhardt’s dissent.

The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is REJECTED. All other pending motions are denied.

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.