Case Name: JOHN DOE I; John Doe II; John Doe III, individually and on behalf of proposed class members; Global Exchange, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NESTLE USA, INC.; Archer Daniels Midland Company; Cargill Incorporated Company; Cargill Cocoa, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-06
Citations: 788 F.3d 946
Docket Number: No. 10-56739
Parties: JOHN DOE I; John Doe II; John Doe III, individually and on behalf of proposed class members; Global Exchange, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NESTLE USA, INC.; Archer Daniels Midland Company; Cargill Incorporated Company; Cargill Cocoa, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: DOROTHY W. NELSON, KIM McLANE WARDLAW, and JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 788
Pages: 946–956

Head Matter:
JOHN DOE I; John Doe II; John Doe III, individually and on behalf of proposed class members; Global Exchange, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NESTLE USA, INC.; Archer Daniels Midland Company; Cargill Incorporated Company; Cargill Cocoa, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-56739.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
May 6, 2015.
Amended June 10, 2015.
Terrence Patrick Collingsworth, Esquire, Senior Partner, Conrad & Scherer, LLP, Washington, DC, Paul L. Hoffman, Schonbrun Desimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman, Venice, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Craig A. Hoover, Neal Katyal, Dominic Francis Perella, Esquire, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, Washington, DC, Julie A. Shepard, Jenner & Block, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee, Nestle USA, Inc.
Jonathan H. Blavin, Kristin Linsley Myles, Esquire, Munger Tolies & Olson, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Brad D. Brian, Esquire, Daniel Paul Collins, Munger, Tolies & Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee, Archer Daniels Midland Company.
Andrew John Pincus, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, Lee H. Rubin, Mayer Brown LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Defendants-Appellees, Cargill Incorporated Company and Cargill Cocoa.
Before: DOROTHY W. NELSON, KIM McLANE WARDLAW, and JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
Judge Rawlinson voted to grant the petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc.
Judge Nelson and Judge Wardlaw voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge Wardlaw voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge Nelson so recommended.
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35.
Judges Graber, Ikuta, Watford, Owens, and Friedland did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.
The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.
Judge Bea's dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc is filed concurrently with this order.