FOR PUBLICATION



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN J. CRUZ,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

,

v.

CITY OF SPOKANE;

WASHINGTON STATE CRIMINAL

JUSTICE TRAINING COMMISSION, a state commission; RICK BOWEN, Commander of the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission Basic Law Enforcement Academy; JOHN EVERLY, Police Officer at the Spokane Police Department and

Assistant Commander of the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission Basic Law Enforcement Academy; ART DOLLARD, Police Officer at the Spokane Police Department and TAC Officer at the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Co mmission Basic Law Enforcement Academy; JAKE JENSEN, Police Officer at the Spokane Police Department and TAC No. 21

- 35912

D.C. No. 2:20

- cv

00250

- SAB

ORDER

WITHDRAWING

CERTIFIED QUESTION2 C RUZ V

. C ITY OF S POKANE

Officer at the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission Basic Law Enforcement Academy; TODD BELITZ, Police Officer at the Spokane Police Department and TAC Officer at the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission

Basic Law Enforcem ent Academy; SUE RAHR, Executive Director of the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission,

Defendants

- Appellants

, and

FERRY COUNTY; CITY OF REPUBLIC, a municipal corporation; RAY MAYCUMBER, Ferry County Sheriff; AMY ROOKER, Ferry County Chief Civil Deputy; AUSTIN HERSHAW, Police Officer at the Black Diamond Police Department; PATRICK RAINER, Detective at the Ferry County Sheriff's Office,

Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Stanley A. Bastian, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 30, 2023 Submission Withdrawn April 28, 2023C RUZ V

. C ITY OF S POKANE 3

Resubmitted December 26, 2023 Seattle, Washington

Filed December 26, 2023

Before: Jacqueline H. Nguyen and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges, and Dean D. Pregerson, * District Judge.

SUMMARY **

Voluntary Dismissal

The panel granted the parties’ joint stipulated motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, withdraw a question that the panel had certified to the Washington Supreme Court relating to the scope of immunity provided by RCW 43.101.390, and remand to the district court for dismissal of all claims against State Appellants.

COUNSEL

Heidi S. Holland (argued), Attorney; Taylor Hennessey, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Tort Claims Division; Robert W. Ferguson, Washington Attorney General; Washington Attorney General’s Office, Spokane,

* The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.4 C RUZ V

. C ITY OF S POKANE

Washington; Julie A. Turley, Assistant Attorney General, Washington Attorney General’s Office, Olympia, Washington; for Defendant-Appellant.

Nathan J. Arnold (argued) and Emanuel F. Jacobowitz, Arnold & Jacobowitz PLLC, Redmond, Washington, for

Plaintiff

- Appellee.

ORDER

On April 28, 2023, we certified to the Washington Supreme Court a question relating to the pr oper scope of immunity provided by RCW 43.101.390. Dkt. No. 45. The Washington Supreme Court accepted the certified question

on May 1, 2023

. Dkt. No. 52. Thereafter, both the Washington Supreme Court and our court stayed

pro ceedings while th e parties engaged in mediation. Dkt.

No s. 55, 56.

On December 14, 2023, the parties filed a joint Stipulated Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeal, Withdraw the Certified Question, and Remand for Dismissal

. Dkt. No.

63. T he Motion is hereby GRANTED.

Therefore, we now withdraw the prior certified question to the Washington Supreme Court. The matter is remanded for the district court to dismiss all claims against State Appellants. The Clerk of Court is ordered to transmit to the Washington Supreme Court, under official seal of the Ninth Circuit, this order. A copy of this order served on the district

court shall act as and for the mandate of this court.

Each side shall bear their own costs.

It is so ORDERED

.