Today, 156 days after the petition for an en banc hearing was filed, the petition was denied in James Rothery, et al v. County of Sacramento, et al.
Filed order (M. MARGARET MCKEOWN, PAUL J. WATFORD and MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND) The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. 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. See Fed. R. App. P. 35. Appellants’ petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc (Docket Entry No. ) are denied. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case.  (GB)
This Appeal was filed on 08/25/2009. This case was first filed on 09/02/2008 in the district court.
After the Peruta en banc decision was handed down the plaintiff's lawyer claimed that his was an Open Carry case as well and yet nowhere in his 800+ paragraph complaint or in his filings in the district court did he seek to openly carry any firearm, anywhere.
The same is true of the NRA lawsuit filed on the heels of the Peruta en banc decision, Flanagan v. Harris (now Becerra).
The lawyer for Rothery is the same lawyer who represented the plaintiffs in the 2002 Silveira case (cert denied) in which the recently deceased 9th circuit court of appeals Judge Reinhardt held that the Second Amendment was not an individual right but was, instead, a collective right limited to militias. That decision created a SCOTUS Rule 10 split with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (United States v. Emerson 2001, cert denied) which was followed by another circuit split in the case which would come to be known as District of Columbia v. Heller.
I do not know if there will be a cert petition filed. If there is then I will post a link to the SCOTUS docket at my webpage
for this case.