Case Name: Alva GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF the SOUTHEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, incorrectly sued as "County of Los Angeles, a public entity; Porter De Debovay; John W. Bunnett; and Russell F. Schooling, in their capacity as officials having authority to issue personnel rules for employees of the County of Los Angeles at the Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District," Defendants-Appellants; Alva GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Porter DE DEBOVAY; John W. Bunnett; and Russell F. Schooling, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1988-11-23
Citations: 861 F.2d 1187
Docket Number: Nos. 85-5931, 85-6532 and 86-5888
Parties: Alva GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF the SOUTHEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, incorrectly sued as “County of Los Angeles, a public entity; Porter De Debovay; John W. Bunnett; and Russell F. Schooling, in their capacity as officials having authority to issue personnel rules for employees of the County of Los Angeles at the Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District,” Defendants-Appellants. Alva GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Porter DE DEBOVAY; John W. Bunnett; and Russell F. Schooling, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before BROWNING, TANG and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 861
Pages: 1187–1194

Head Matter:
Alva GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF the SOUTHEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, incorrectly sued as “County of Los Angeles, a public entity; Porter De Debovay; John W. Bunnett; and Russell F. Schooling, in their capacity as officials having authority to issue personnel rules for employees of the County of Los Angeles at the Municipal Court of the Southeast Judicial District,” Defendants-Appellants. Alva GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Porter DE DEBOVAY; John W. Bunnett; and Russell F. Schooling, Defendants-Appellants.
Nos. 85-5931, 85-6532 and 86-5888.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Nov. 23, 1988.
Before BROWNING, TANG and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
The panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc. The full court was advised of the suggestion for an en banc hearing, and a vote was taken. A majority of the active judges failed to vote for the suggestion. The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for a rehearing en banc is rejected.