Ahmad Shapour Arian, an individual; DEENA ARIAN, an individual v. City of Los Angeles

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AHMAD SHAPOUR ARIAN, an
individual; DEENA ARIAN, an
individual,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES; CHARLES
BECK, as an individual and in his official
capacity as Chief of Police; JOSE
ANZORA, Serial No. 40848; DANIEL
BUNCH, Officer, Serial No. 37019;
DEXTER BARRAS, Officer, Serial No.
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.
No. 13-56529
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-05261-RGK-
PLA
Central District of California,
Los Angeles
ORDER AMENDING
MEMORANDUM DISPOSITION
AND DENYING PETITION FOR
PANEL REHEARING AND
PETITION FOR REHEARING
EN BANC
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
FILED
DEC 18 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

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

-- 2 of 3 --

rehearing.

-- 3 of 3 --