Case Name: Ernest Eugene BRADY, husband; Marritta Kay Brady, wife; James Dean Brady, husband; Flossie Marie Brady, wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, an Illinois corporation (including Ross Products Division of Abbor Laboratories, improperly named), Defendant-Appellant, and ABC Entities, I-X; John/Jane Does, IX; Ross Products, a Division of Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-25
Citations: 446 F.3d 924
Docket Number: No. 04-15257
Parties: Ernest Eugene BRADY, husband; Marritta Kay Brady, wife; James Dean Brady, husband; Flossie Marie Brady, wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, an Illinois corporation (including Ross Products Division of Abbor Laboratories, improperly named), Defendant-Appellant, and ABC Entities, I-X; John/Jane Does, IX; Ross Products, a Division of Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Defendants.
Judges: Before JEROME FARRIS, A. WALLACE TASHIMA, and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 446
Pages: 924–926

Head Matter:
Ernest Eugene BRADY, husband; Marritta Kay Brady, wife; James Dean Brady, husband; Flossie Marie Brady, wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, an Illinois corporation (including Ross Products Division of Abbor Laboratories, improperly named), Defendant-Appellant, and ABC Entities, I-X; John/Jane Does, IX; Ross Products, a Division of Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Defendants.
No. 04-15257.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
April 25, 2006.
Brad Kevin Keogh, Esq., Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John C. Lemaster, Esq., L. William Staudenmaier, Esq., Kara A. Ricupero, Esq., Ryley, Carlock & Applewhite, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JEROME FARRIS, A. WALLACE TASHIMA, and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judge Callahan votes to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judges Farris and Tashima so recommend.
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and a judge of the court called for a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. On such vote, a majority of the nonrecused active judges failed to vote in favor of en banc rehearing.
The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied.