Opinion

Kami Etemadi v. Merrick Garland

36 F.4th 1238 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Jun 23, 2022

Full text

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KAMI ETEMADI, No. 18-72318 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A074-808-492

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, ORDER Respondent.

Filed June 23, 2022

Before: Mary H. Murguia, Chief Judge, and Danny J. Boggs * and Milan D. Smith, Jr., Circuit Judges.

Order

* The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

2 ETEMADI V. GARLAND

ORDER

The petition for panel rehearing, Dkt. No. 53, is granted. The opinion filed on September 9, 2021, and reported at 12 F.4th 1013, is withdrawn. Dkt. No. 48.

The case is stayed and referred to mediation. If mediation is unsuccessful, the stay will be lifted, and the panel will determine whether to issue a final disposition or order additional argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(4).

Richard Campfield v. Safelite Group, Inc.

Sixth Circuit · Jan 16, 2024

Francisco Reyes-Corado v. Merrick Garland

Ninth Circuit · Aug 11, 2023

Guillermo Acosta, Jr. v. Kilolo Kijakazi

Ninth Circuit · Apr 21, 2023

Coomer v. Lindell

D. Colorado · Mar 15, 2023

Parentheticals

stating plaintiff must plead “an injury to a commercial interest in sales or business reputation proximately caused by the defendant’s misrepresentation” (citing Lexmark, 572 U.S. at 140)
Blendtec Inc. v. BlendJet Inc., et al.
declining to “infer harm” from the fact that defendant’s membership levels increased following its use of the defamatory statement because plaintiff “supplies no evidence that its own membership levels were affected by” the defamatory statement
Double Diamond Distribution, Ltd. v. Crocs, Inc.
“At the summary judgment stage, [plaintiff] must do more than merely speculate that it has been harmed – it must provide evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that an injury to [plaintiff] has occurred” to prevail on its Lanham Act claim.
Double Diamond Distribution, Ltd. v. Crocs, Inc.