UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ ANDREI FENNER et al., │ Plaintiffs, │ │ PHILLIP BURNS, et al. (23-1648); NANCY ANDERTON, │ et al. (23-1696); MIKE BULAON, et al. (23-1697); > Nos. 23-1648/1696/1697/1698 │ TAYLOR PANTEL, et al. (23-1698), │ Plaintiffs-Appellants, │ │ v. │ │ │ GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH; │ ROBERT BOSCH LLC, │ Defendants-Appellees. │ ┘

On Petition for Rehearing En Banc United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City. No. 1:17-cv-11661—Thomas L. Ludington, District Judge.

Decided and Filed: November 20, 2024

Before: MOORE, KETHLEDGE, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC: Jay P. Lefkowitz, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, New York, New York, Renee D. Smith, Jeffrey S. Bramson, Cole T. Carter, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee General Motors. ON RESPONSE TO THE PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC AND TO THE MOTIONS TO FILE AMICI BRIEFS: Steve W. Berman, Garth D. Wojtanowicz, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP, Seattle, Washington, E. Powell Miller, Dennis A. Lienhardt, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C., Rochester, Michigan, James E. Cecchi, Donald A. Ecklund, James A. O’Brien III, CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C., Roseland, New Jersey, Christopher A. Seeger, Jennifer R. Scullion, SEEGER WEISS LLP, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, Shauna Itri, SEEGER WEISS Nos. 23-1648/1696/1697/1698 Fenner, et al. v. General Motors, LLC, et al. Page 2

LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellants Phillip Burns, et al. and joined by the Anderton, Bulaon, and Pantel Appellants. ON AMICI BRIEFS: Stephen A. D’Aunoy, KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD, St. Louis, Missouri, Brandon L. Boxler, KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD, Richmond, Virginia, Jonathan S. Martel, ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.

The court delivered an order denying the petition for rehearing en banc. MOORE, J. (pp. 3–5), delivered a separate opinion concurring in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc, in which CLAY, STRANCH, and BLOOMEKATZ, JJ., concurred. GRIFFIN, J. (pp. 6–7), delivered a separate opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, in which KETHLEDGE and BUSH, JJ., concurred. KETHLEDGE, J. (pp. 8–9), also delivered a separate opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, in which GRIFFIN and BUSH, JJ., concurred.

_________________

ORDER _________________

The court received a petition for rehearing en banc. The original panel has reviewed the petition for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision. The petition was then circulated to the full court.* Less than a majority of the judges voted in favor