# Cindy Garcia v. Google, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · March 14, 2014

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3066158

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 14, 2014
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3066158

## Opinion text

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.
2 GARCIA V. GOOGLE

Filed March 14, 2014

Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge
and En Banc Coordinator.

ORDER

A judge of this Court has made a sua sponte request for
a vote on whether to rehear en banc the panel’s order of
February 28, 2014 denying a stay of the panel’s prior orders,
as amended, directing Google and YouTube to remove
immediately all or part of a film entitled “Innocence of
Muslims” from its platforms worldwide and to prevent
further uploads.

Pursuant to General Order 5.5(b), a vote of the non-
recused active judges was conducted as to whether to rehear
the panel order en banc. A majority of the non-recused active
judges did not vote in favor of rehearing en banc.

Therefore, pursuant to General Order 5.5(c), the panel
shall resume control of the case. Any further proceedings as
to the panel opinion, including any petitions for rehearing and
rehearing en banc, will be considered separately.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3066158. Public record. Not legal advice.