Case Name: Carl GENBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven S. PORTER, Defendant-Appellee, and Jeffrey Sperber; Al Bautista; Cheryl Hoffman-Bray; Michele Darnaud; Philippe Gastone, Defendants. National Whistleblower Center, Amicus Curiae.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-04-19
Citations: 888 F.3d 470
Docket Number: No. 16-1368
Parties: Carl GENBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Steven S. PORTER, Defendant-Appellee,
and
Jeffrey Sperber; Al Bautista; Cheryl Hoffman-Bray; Michele Darnaud; Philippe Gastone, Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 888
Pages: 470–470

Head Matter:
Carl GENBERG, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Steven S. PORTER, Defendant-Appellee,
and
Jeffrey Sperber; Al Bautista; Cheryl Hoffman-Bray; Michele Darnaud; Philippe Gastone, Defendants.
National Whistleblower Center, Amicus Curiae.
No. 16-1368
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
April 19, 2018
ORDER

Opinion:
This matter is before the court on the Petition of Steven S. Porter for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc. We also have a response from the appellant and Mr. Porter's reply.
Upon consideration, we grant panel rehearing only to clarify that the prior opinion addressed only the award of summary judgment to the defendant. The Court did not address, one way or another, whether the defendant can present the same-action defense in the district court's further proceedings.
In light of this limited grant and clarification, and noting the request for en banc consideration was dependent on it, that part of the petition seeking en banc review is denied as moot.