Case Name: Richard STENGEL; Mary Lou Stengel, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MEDTRONIC INCORPORATED, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-25
Citations: 686 F.3d 1121
Docket Number: No. 10-17755
Parties: Richard STENGEL; Mary Lou Stengel, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MEDTRONIC INCORPORATED, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 686
Pages: 1121–1122

Head Matter:
Richard STENGEL; Mary Lou Stengel, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MEDTRONIC INCORPORATED, a foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-17755.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 25, 2012.
Thomas G. Cotter, Haralson Miller Pitt Feldman & McAnally, PLC, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Michael Kevin Brown and Lisa Marie Baird, Reed Smith, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, and Timothy James Casey, Esquire, Litigation Counsel, Schmitt, Schneck, Smyth & Herrod PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee.

Opinion:
ORDER
KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:
Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be dted as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit.
Judges Wardlaw, Murguia and Hurwitz did not participate in the deliberations or vote as to whether the case should be taken en banc.