Filed: May 06, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHYRIAA HENDERSON, on behalf of No. 17-55373 herself, and all others similarly situated, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 3:13-cv-01845- JLS-BLM v. UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS, INC., ORDER DBA USA Funds, Defendant-Appellee. Filed May 6, 2019 Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, William A. Fletcher, and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges. 2 HENDERSON V. UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS ORDER Judge D.W Nelson voted to deny the petition for rehearing and reco
Summary: FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHYRIAA HENDERSON, on behalf of No. 17-55373 herself, and all others similarly situated, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 3:13-cv-01845- JLS-BLM v. UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS, INC., ORDER DBA USA Funds, Defendant-Appellee. Filed May 6, 2019 Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, William A. Fletcher, and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges. 2 HENDERSON V. UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS ORDER Judge D.W Nelson voted to deny the petition for rehearing and recom..
More
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHYRIAA HENDERSON, on behalf of No. 17-55373
herself, and all others similarly
situated, D.C. No.
Plaintiff-Appellant, 3:13-cv-01845-
JLS-BLM
v.
UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS, INC., ORDER
DBA USA Funds,
Defendant-Appellee.
Filed May 6, 2019
Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, William A. Fletcher,
and Jay S. Bybee, Circuit Judges.
2 HENDERSON V. UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS
ORDER
Judge D.W Nelson voted to deny the petition for
rehearing and recommended denial of the petition for
rehearing en banc. Judge W. Fletcher voted to deny the
petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Judge Bybee
voted to grant the petition for rehearing and rehearing en
banc.
The full court has been advised of the petition for
rehearing en banc and no active judge has requested a vote
on whether to rehear the matter en banc. (Fed.R. App. P. 35.)
Accordingly, the petition for rehearing and the petition for
rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for
rehearing or rehearing en banc will be entertained.
Additionally, Judges D.W. Nelson and W. Fletcher voted
to amend the opinion as follows. On page 11 of the slip
opinion, replace the first paragraph with the following
language:
USA Funds argues it could not have ratified
the actions of the debt collectors because
there is no agency relationship between it and
the debt collectors. Batzel v. Smith,
333 F.3d
1018, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003). We disagree.
First, our decision in Batzel involved
vicarious liability and agency principles
under California law, which is distinct from
principles articulated in the Restatement and
from federal common law. Second, the
Restatement § 4.01 cmt. b makes clear that,
in most jurisdictions, ratification may create
an agency relationship when none existed
before if the acts are “done by an actor . . .
who is not an agent but pretends to be.”