Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-98-07100/USCOURTS-caDC-98-07100-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

---------

No. 98-7075

Filed On: June 2, 2000

Patricia Kidd,

Appellant

v.

District of Columbia, et al.,

Appellees

Consolidated with

98-7100

---------

BEFORE: Edwards, Chief Judge; Silberman, Williams,

Ginsburg, Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph, Rogers, Tatel

and Garland, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

The petition for rehearing en banc of amicus curiae and

the response thereto have been circulated to the full court.

The taking of a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority

of the judges of the court in regular active service did not

USCA Case #98-7100 Document #520960 Filed: 06/02/2000 Page 1 of 3
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

vote in favor of the petition. Upon consideration of the

foregoing, it is

ORDERED that the petition be denied.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY:

Robert A. Bonner

Deputy Clerk

Chief Judge Edwards and Circuit Judges Sentelle, Tatel

and Garland would grant the petition.

A statement of Circuit Judge Tatel, dissenting from the

denial of rehearing en banc, joined by Chief Judge Edwards

and Circuit Judges Sentelle and Garland, is attached.

Circuit Judge Rogers did not participate in this matter.

USCA Case #98-7100 Document #520960 Filed: 06/02/2000 Page 2 of 3
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Tatel, Circuit Judge, with whom Edwards, Chief Judge,

and Sentelle and Garland, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting

from the denial of rehearing en banc: In my view, this case

raises a "question of exceptional importance" because the

panel decision will produce precisely the kind of uncertainty

and potential loss of appeal rights that Rule 58 was intended

to prevent. I trust, however, that our district court colleagues will recognize that there is no disagreement on the

panel that the simplest solution is for them to instruct the

Clerk of Court to issue judgments adhering to Model Forms

31 and 32. By doing so, they will provide the certainty Rule

58 demands, prevent accidental loss of appeal rights, and

ensure that this court will never again have to address this

issue. See Kidd v. District of Columbia, 206 F.3d 35, 41

(D.C. Cir. 2000); id. at 44 (Tatel, J., dissenting).

USCA Case #98-7100 Document #520960 Filed: 06/02/2000 Page 3 of 3