Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Balkrishna Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP

Balkrishna Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP, 998 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2021)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 2021-06-04
Topic: commercial

FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 4 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BALKRISHNA SETTY, individually and as No. 18-35573 general partner in Shrinivas Sugandhalaya Partnership with Nagraj Setty; SHRINIVAS D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01146-RAJ SUGANDHALAYA (BNG) LLP, Western District of Washington, Seattle Plaintiffs-Appellees, ORDER WITHDRAWING v. OPINION SHRINIVAS SUGANDHALAYA LLP, Defendant-Appellant.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Balkrishna Setty v. Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

                               FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         JUN 4 2021
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BALKRISHNA SETTY, individually and as            No.   18-35573
general partner in Shrinivas Sugandhalaya
Partnership with Nagraj Setty; SHRINIVAS         D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01146-RAJ
SUGANDHALAYA (BNG) LLP,                          Western District of Washington,
                                                 Seattle
                Plaintiffs-Appellees,
                                                 ORDER WITHDRAWING
 v.                                              OPINION

SHRINIVAS SUGANDHALAYA LLP,

                Defendant-Appellant.

Before: D.W. NELSON, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

      The opinion filed January 20, 2021, and appearing at

986 F.3d 1139

 (9th Cir.

2021), is withdrawn. It may not be cited by or to this court or any district court of

the Ninth Circuit. A new disposition will be filed in due course. Accordingly,

appellant Shrinivas Sugandhalaya LLP’s petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED

as moot. Subsequent petitions for rehearing and petitions for rehearing en banc

may be filed following the filing of a new disposition.