# Cindy Garcia v. Google, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 18, 2015 · 786 F.3d 727

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9807406

## Case

- **Full name:** Cindy Lee GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware Corporation; YouTube, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, DefendantsAppellees, 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 Divrat; Sobhi Bushra; Robert Bacily; Nicola Bacily; Thomas J. Tanas; Erwin Salameh; Yousseff M. Basseley; Malid Ahlawi, Defendants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 18, 2015
- **Citations:** 786 F.3d 727; 2015 WL 2343967
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Reinhardt, Sidney, Thomas
- **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/9807406

## Opinion text

Order by Chief Judge THOMAS; Dissent by Judge REINHARDT.
ORDER
As noted in the order filed March 14, 2014, a judge of this Court made a sua sponte request for a vote on whether to rehear en banc the panel’s order of February 28, 2014 denying an emergency 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 their 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, an order was issued on March 14, 2014, pursuant to General Order 5.5(c), returning control of the case to the panel.
Separately from the en banc call as to the panel’s stay order, a judge of this Court made a request for a vote on whether to rehear en banc the panel’s amended opinion. A majority of the non-recused active judges voted in favor of rehearing the case en banc, and an order was issued on November 12, 2014 ordering that the case be reheard en banc. Oral argument was held before the en banc panel on December 15, 2014. The en banc panel has issued its decision, which is filed concomitantly with this order.
This amended order denying rehearing en banc as to the panel order of February 28, 2014 denying an emergency stay of the panel’s prior orders is filed for the purpose of allowing publication of a dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc as to the panel order.
Therefore, the order of March 14, 2014 denying rehearing en banc as to the panel order of February 28, 2014 is reinstated and filed for publication. This amended order does not affect the subsequent en banc proceedings in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9807406. Public record. Not legal advice.