Source: http://the9thcircuitwatch.com/wp/?cat=8
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 00:27:13+00:00

Document:
Although this case is relatively unimportant in most contexts, Delia v. City of Rialto illustrates another reversal of the 9th Circuit. But from a cursory glance, if you read the citation above, you would never know the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit.
The plaintiff Delia originally filed a 1983 claim against the City of Rialto, its employees, and private contractor Steve Filarsky hired by the City. The district court ruled all the City employees and private employee Filarsky were entitled to immunity. On appeal the 9th Circuit applied immunity to all governmental employees except Filarsky. The Supreme Court reversed, holding Filarsky was also entitled to immunity.
The original name of the case in the district court, and in the 9th Circuit, was Delia v. City of Rialto, et. al including defendant Filarsky, but in the Supreme Court the case was only named Filarsky v. Delia 2012 WL 1288731. After the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, the 9th Circuit issued an order on June 19, 2012: “In light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Filarsky v. Delia (cite) the judgment of the district court is affirmed. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Remanded;” Delia v. City of Rialto, et al., 2012 WL 2308916.” The record is correct-and misleading.
In its June 19 order remanding to the district court, the 9th Circuit only mentioned the name of the Supreme Court decision entitled Filarsky v. Delia, and not the previously dismissed case in the district court under the title of Delia v. City of Reno. The 9th Circuit on remand to the district court says nothing about its own reversal by the Supreme Court, and the reader would never identify the reversed names on the opinion. In other words, the June 19 order remanding to the district court, the 9th Circuit indirectly affirmed the district court case previously applying immunity to all parties without noting its own reversal.
Add this case to the record number of reversals in the 9th Circuit.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.