Case Name: Leroy HAEGER; Donna Haeger, husband and wife; Barry Haeger; Suzanne Haeger, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Defendant-Appellant; and Spartan Motors, Inc., a Michigan corporation; Gulfstream Coach, Inc., an Indiana corporation, Defendants v. Roetzel & Andress, LPA; Basil J. Musnuff, Movants; Leroy Haeger; Donna Haeger, husband and wife; Barry Haeger; Suzanne Haeger, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, an Ohio corporation, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-08
Citations: 869 F.3d 707
Docket Number: No. 12-17718, No. 13-16801
Parties: Leroy HAEGER; Donna Haeger, husband and wife; Barry Haeger; Suzanne Haeger, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Defendant-Appellant and Spartan Motors, Inc., a Michigan corporation; Gulfstream Coach, Inc., an Indiana corporation, Defendants v. Roetzel & Andress, LPA; Basil J. Musnuff, Movants Leroy Haeger; Donna Haeger, husband and wife; Barry Haeger; Suzanne Haeger, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, an Ohio corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and PAUL J. WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 869
Pages: 707–710

Head Matter:
Leroy HAEGER; Donna Haeger, husband and wife; Barry Haeger; Suzanne Haeger, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Defendant-Appellant and Spartan Motors, Inc., a Michigan corporation; Gulfstream Coach, Inc., an Indiana corporation, Defendants v. Roetzel & Andress, LPA; Basil J. Musnuff, Movants Leroy Haeger; Donna Haeger, husband and wife; Barry Haeger; Suzanne Haeger, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, an Ohio corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-17718, No. 13-16801
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Filed June 8, 2017
Pierre H. Bergeron, Squire Sanders LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio; George Brandon, Squire Sanders LLP, Phoenix, Arizona; Jill G. Okun, Squire Sanders LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Defendant-Appellant/Defendant The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company.
Mark I. Harrison, Jeffrey B. Molinar, Osborn Maledon, PA, Phoenix, Arizona, for MovanVMovant-Appellant Basil J. Mus-nuff.
Andrew M. Jacobs, Katherine V. Foss, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Tucson, Arizona; James R. Condo, Lisa M. Coulter, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Phoenix, Arizona, for Mov-ant-Appellant Graeme Hancock.
John J. Egbert, Jennings Strouss & Salmon, PLC, Phoenix, Arizona; David L. Kurtz, The Kurtz Law Firm, Scottsdale, Arizona, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Before: J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, MILAN D. SMITH, JR. and PAUL J. WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dissent by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.
ORDER
Defendant-Appellant Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's unopposed motion for supplemental briefing is DENIED.
Pursuant to the opinion of the Supreme Court in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1178, 197 L,Ed.2d 585 (2017), the district court's $2.7 million sanctions award is VACATED, and, by vote of a majority of the panel judges, the matter is REMANDED to the district court for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.