Susan Drazen v. Mr. Juan Enrique Pinto

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Susan Drazen v. Mr. Juan Enrique Pinto, 61 F.4th 1297 (11th Cir. 2023)

Susan Drazen v. Mr. Juan Enrique Pinto

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 21-10199     Document: 89-1      Date Filed: 03/13/2023    Page: 1 of 2




                                     In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                          For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                  No. 21-10199
                           ____________________

       SUSAN DRAZEN,
       on behalf of herself and other persons similarly situated,
                                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,
       Godaddy.com, LLC,
       a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
                                                      Defendant-Appellee,
       versus
       MR. JUAN ENRIQUE PINTO,


                                                        Movant-Appellant.
USCA11 Case: 21-10199     Document: 89-1     Date Filed: 03/13/2023    Page: 2 of 2




       2                       Order of the Court                 21-10199

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Alabama
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-00563-KD-B
                           ____________________

       Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, WILSON, JORDAN,
       ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, BRANCH, GRANT, LUCK, LAGOA,
       and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       BY THE COURT:
              A petition for rehearing having been filed and a member of
       this Court in active service having requested a poll on whether this
       appeal should be reheard by the Court sitting en banc, and a ma-
       jority of the judges in active service on this Court having voted in
       favor of granting rehearing en banc, IT IS ORDERED that this ap-
       peal will be reheard en banc. The panel’s opinion is VACATED.


Reference

Cited By
8 cases
Status
Published