Jak Sukyas; Edward Sukyas v. Romania; Radef Romania Film

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAK SUKYAS; EDWARD SUKYAS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
ROMANIA; RADEF ROMANIA FILM,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-56557
D.C. No.
2:15-cv-01946-FMO-JC
Central District of California,
Los Angeles
ORDER
Before: WARDLAW and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS,* District
Judge.
The memorandum disposition filed on March 19, 2019 is amended as
follows:
On page four of the memorandum disposition, in the paragraph beginning
“The district court did not address,” replace <Although the Sukyas brothers
sufficiently allege that the rights in issue—their ownership rights in CIRO’s assets,
real estate, and business—are property rights, we remand for the district court to
decide in the first instance whether CIRO “was indeed ‘taken in violation of
international law.’”> with <We remand for the district court to decide in the first
instance whether the Sukyas brothers’ ownership rights in CIRO’s assets, real
* The Honorable William K. Sessions III, United States District Judge
for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation.
FILED
APR 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
estate, and business are “rights in property,” and whether CIRO “was indeed ‘taken
in violation of international law.’”>.
With this amendment, Judges Wardlaw and Bennett vote to deny the
appellees’ petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, and Judge Sessions
so recommends. 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. The petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc
is therefore DENIED. No further petitions for panel or en banc rehearing shall be
permitted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

-- 2 of 2 --