Hudacko v. Regents of UC - Rehearing Denied

9th Circuit Opinions

Filed March 11th, 2026

Detected March 12th, 2026

Summary

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a petition for rehearing in the case of Hudacko v. Regents of the University of California. The court's order indicates that neither panel rehearing nor en banc rehearing was granted.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued an order denying the petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in the case of Edward Allyn Hudacko v. Regents of the University of California. The order, filed on March 11, 2026, indicates that the panel unanimously voted to deny panel rehearing, and a majority of the active judges did not vote in favor of en banc consideration.

This denial signifies the finality of the appellate court's decision on the matter, barring further appeals to higher courts. For regulated entities, particularly educational institutions and their legal counsel involved in litigation, this outcome means the prior ruling stands. No new compliance actions or deadlines are imposed by this order, as it pertains to the conclusion of the appellate process for this specific case.

Source document (simplified)

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWARD ALLYN HUDACKO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; JANET YI MAN LEE; DIANE EHRENSAFT; STEPHEN ROSENTHAL; ASAF ORR; NATHANIEL BIGGER; DANIEL HARKINS; CHRISTINE UNDERHILL, FKA Christine Hudacko, Defendants - Appellees. No. 24-7360 D.C. No. 3:23-cv-05316-SI ORDER Filed March 11, 2026 Before: Sidney R. Thomas, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, and Daniel A. Bress, Circuit Judges.

2 HUDACKO V. REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF CALIFORNIA ORDER The panel unanimously voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. Judges Nguyen and Bress voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge Thomas so recommended. The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 40. Judge Tung did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case. The petitions for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc (Dkt. No. 91) are DENIED.