Case Name: David MATSUURA, individually and dba Orchid Isle Nursery, and Stephen Matsuura, individually and dba Hawaiian Dendrobium Farm, Plaintiffs-counter, defendants-Appellants, v. ALSTON & BIRD, a Georgia partnership including professional corporations, Defendant, and E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-counter, plaintiff-Appellee; David Matsuura, individually dba Orchid Isle Nursery; Stephen Matsuura, individually dba Hawaiian Dendrobium Farm, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1999-02-02
Citations: 179 F.3d 1131
Docket Number: Nos. 97-16400, 97-17033
Parties: David MATSUURA, individually and dba Orchid Isle Nursery, and Stephen Matsuura, individually and dba Hawaiian Dendrobium Farm, Plaintiffs-counter, defendants-Appellants, v. ALSTON & BIRD, a Georgia partnership including professional corporations, Defendant, and E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-counter, plaintiff-Appellee. David Matsuura, individually dba Orchid Isle Nursery; Stephen Matsuura, individually dba Hawaiian Dendrobium Farm, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: BROWNING, GOODWIN, and SCHROEDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 179
Pages: 1131–1131

Head Matter:
David MATSUURA, individually and dba Orchid Isle Nursery, and Stephen Matsuura, individually and dba Hawaiian Dendrobium Farm, Plaintiffs-counter, defendants-Appellants, v. ALSTON & BIRD, a Georgia partnership including professional corporations, Defendant, and E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-counter, plaintiff-Appellee. David Matsuura, individually dba Orchid Isle Nursery; Stephen Matsuura, individually dba Hawaiian Dendrobium Farm, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Nos. 97-16400, 97-17033.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 9, 1998.
Filed Feb. 2, 1999.
Amended June 25, 1999.
Stephen T. Cox, Molligan, Cox & Moyer, San Francisco, California, for the plaintiffs-appellants.
William H. Boice and A. Stephens Clay, Kilpatrick Stockon, Atlanta, Georgia, for the defendant-appellee.
Before: BROWNING, GOODWIN, and SCHROEDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
The opinion filed February 2, 1999 [166 F.3d 1006], is modified as follows:
Section II, second paragraph, first and second sentences [166 F.3d at 1008]: delete first sentence and add the following footnote to end of the second sentence:
[FN] DuPont makes a bare assertion in a footnote that DiSabatino was wrongly decided, but devotes its argument to distinguishing the case.
The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. The request for certification and the motion for a stay of proceedings are denied.