United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 15-1345 September Term, 2016
SEC-3-15006
Filed On: February 16, 2017
Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. and
Raymond J. Lucia,
Petitioners
v.
Securities and Exchange Commission,
Respondent
BEFORE: Garland*, Chief Judge; Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Brown,
Griffith, Kavanaugh, Srinivasan, Millett, Pillard, and Wilkins,
Circuit Judges
ORDER
Upon consideration of petitioners’ petition for rehearing en banc, the response
thereto, and the vote in favor of the petition by a majority of judges eligible to participate,
it is
ORDERED the petition be granted. Case No. 15-1345 will be reheard by the
court sitting en banc. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the judgment filed August 9, 2016 be vacated. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument before the en banc court be heard on
Wednesday, May 24, 2017, in Courtroom # 20, Sixth Floor. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to filing briefs electronically, the parties file
30 paper copies of each of their final briefs and the deferred appendix, in accordance
with the following schedule:
Initial Brief for Petitioners March 10, 2017
*Chief Judge Garland did not participate in this matter.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 15-1345 September Term, 2016
Initial Brief(s) for Amici Curiae March 10, 2017
Initial Brief for Respondent March 31, 2017
Initial Brief(s) for Amici Curiae, if any March 31, 2017
Initial Reply Brief for Petitioners April 10, 2017
Deferred Appendix April 17, 2017
Final Briefs April 24, 2017
The briefs are to be limited to the following issues:
1. Is the SEC administrative law judge who handled this case an inferior officer
rather than an employee for the purposes of the Appointments Clause of Article II of the
Constitution?
2. Should the court overrule Landry v. FDIC, 204 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 2000)?
Parties are directed to hand deliver the paper copies of their submissions to the
Clerk’s office by the date due. To enhance the clarity of their briefs, the parties are
urged to limit the use of abbreviations, including acronyms. While acronyms may be
used for entities and statutes with widely recognized initials, briefs should not contain
acronyms that are not widely known. See D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal
Procedures 41 (2017); Notice Regarding Use of Acronyms (D.C. Cir. Jan. 26, 2010).
Because the briefing schedule is keyed to the date of oral argument, the court will
grant requests for extension of time limits only for extraordinarily compelling reasons.
The briefs and appendix must contain the date the case is scheduled for oral argument
at the top of the cover. See D.C. Cir. Rule 28(a)(8).
Separate order(s) will issue scheduling the time of oral argument and allocating
oral argument time.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/
Michael C. McGrail
Deputy Clerk
Page 2