FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 18 2015 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AHMAD SHAPOUR ARIAN, an No. 13-56529 individual; DEENA ARIAN, an individual, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-05261-RGK- PLA Plaintiffs - Appellants, Central District of California, Los Angeles v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES; CHARLES ORDER AMENDING BECK, as an individual and in his official MEMORANDUM DISPOSITION capacity as Chief of Police; JOSE AND DENYING PETITION FOR ANZORA, Serial No. 40848; DANIEL PANEL REHEARING AND BUNCH, Officer, Serial No. 37019; PETITION FOR REHEARING DEXTER BARRAS, Officer, Serial No. EN BANC 38028; GARY HANSEN, Officer, Serial No. 39218; ROBERT CHAVIRA, Officer, Serial No. 31281; ROBERT LUNA, Serial No. 32963; ROY GUTHRIE, Sergeant, Serial No. 26211; RYAN SHAFFER, Officer, Serial No. 38771,

Defendants - Appellees.

Before: FARRIS, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

The memorandum disposition, filed November 16, 2015, is amended as

follows:

1. At page 3, line 13–18, replace <the test to determine whether a homicide is “justifiable” under California law parallels the reasonableness inquiry

used to analyze federal constitutional claims. See Hernandez v. City of Pomona,

207 P.3d 506, 514–16 (Cal. 2009). Because Defendants’ use of force was

objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, summary judgment was

appropriate as to Plaintiffs’ state tort claims.> with <the test to determine whether a

homicide is “justifiable” under California law “is whether the circumstances

reasonably created a fear of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or to

another.” Id. (quotation marks and alteration omitted). Here, the circumstances

reasonably created a fear of death or serious bodily harm, and because the officers

acted accordingly, summary judgment was appropriate as to Plaintiffs’ state tort

claims. See Hayes v. Cty. of San Diego, 305 P.3d 252, 256 (Cal. 2013).>

With this amendment, the panel judges have voted to deny appellants’

petition for panel rehearing. Judge Bybee voted to deny the petition for rehearing

en banc, and Judges Farris and Trott recommended denying the petition for

rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no

judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App.

P. 35.

Appellant’s petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc, filed

November 24, 2015, is DENIED. The panel will not entertain future petitions for rehearing.