David Wit v. United Behavioral Health
- Area
- civil
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAVID WIT; et al., Nos. 20-17363 21-15193 Plaintiffs-Appellees, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-02346-JCS LINDA TILLITT; MARY JONES, Northern District of California, San Francisco Intervenor-Plaintiffs- Appellees, ORDER v.
UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
Defendant-Appellant.
GARY ALEXANDER, on his own behalf Nos. 20-17364 and on behalf of his beneficiary son, Jordan 21-15194 Alexander; et al., D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05337-JCS Plaintiffs-Appellees,
MICHAEL DRISCOLL,
Intervenor-Plaintiff- Appellee, v.
UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
Defendant-Appellant. Before: CHRISTEN and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and ANELLO,* District Judge.
The memorandum disposition filed on March 22, 2022, is withdrawn and replaced with the concurrently filed opinion. The pending petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc [97], and amicus curiae motions [101, 105, & 112]
are DENIED as moot. The court permits the parties to file subsequent petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc.
* The Honorable Michael M. Anello, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.