United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
---------
No. 98-7075
Filed On: June 2, 2000
Patricia Kidd,
Appellant
v.
District of Columbia, et al.,
Appellees
Consolidated with
98-7100
---------
BEFORE: Edwards, Chief Judge; Silberman, Williams,
Ginsburg, Sentelle, Henderson, Randolph, Rogers, Tatel
and Garland, Circuit Judges.
O R D E R
The petition for rehearing en banc of amicus curiae and
the response thereto have been circulated to the full court.
The taking of a vote was requested. Thereafter, a majority
of the judges of the court in regular active service did not
vote in favor of the petition. Upon consideration of the
foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the petition be denied.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY:
Robert A. Bonner
Deputy Clerk
Chief Judge Edwards and Circuit Judges Sentelle, Tatel
and Garland would grant the petition.
A statement of Circuit Judge Tatel, dissenting from the
denial of rehearing en banc, joined by Chief Judge Edwards
and Circuit Judges Sentelle and Garland, is attached.
Circuit Judge Rogers did not participate in this matter.
Tatel, Circuit Judge, with whom Edwards, Chief Judge,
and Sentelle and Garland, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting
from the denial of rehearing en banc: In my view, this case
raises a "question of exceptional importance" because the
panel decision will produce precisely the kind of uncertainty
and potential loss of appeal rights that Rule 58 was intended
to prevent. I trust, however, that our district court col-
leagues will recognize that there is no disagreement on the
panel that the simplest solution is for them to instruct the
Clerk of Court to issue judgments adhering to Model Forms
31 and 32. By doing so, they will provide the certainty Rule
58 demands, prevent accidental loss of appeal rights, and
ensure that this court will never again have to address this
issue. See Kidd v. District of Columbia, 206 F.3d 35, 41
(D.C. Cir. 2000); id. at 44 (Tatel, J., dissenting).