Opinion

Cindy Garcia v. Google, Inc.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed
Mar 13, 2014
Status
Published
Nature of suit
Civil
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CINDY LEE GARCIA, No. 12-57302

Plaintiff-Appellant,

D.C. No.

v. 2:12-cv-08315-

MWF-VBK

GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware

Corporation; YOUTUBE, LLC, a

California limited liability company, ORDER

Defendants-Appellees,

and

NAKOULA BASSELEY NAKOULA, an

individual, AKA Sam Bacile; MARK

BASSELEY YOUSSEF; ABANOB

BASSELEY NAKOULA; MATTHEW

NEKOLA; AHMED HAMDY; AMAL

NADA; DANIEL K. CARESMAN;

KRITBAG DIFRAT; SOBHI BUSHRA;

ROBERT BACILY; NICOLA BACILY;

THOMAS J. TANAS; ERWIN

SALAMEH; YOUSSEFF M. BASSELEY;

MALID AHLAWI,

Defendants.

Filed March 13, 2014

Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Ronald M. Gould

and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges.

2 GARCIA V. GOOGLE, INC.

ORDER

Within 21 days of the filing of this order, appellant shall

file a response to the petition for rehearing and rehearing en

banc. The response shall comply with Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 32 and Ninth Circuit Rule 40-1.

The court grants leave pursuant to Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 29(a) to any amicus wishing to file a

brief bearing on the petition, so long as it is filed no later than

10 days after the filing of appellant’s response, does not

exceed 2,500 words and otherwise complies with Federal

Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.