E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANDRAEA PARTNERS; Arvak Agronomics, Inc.; Big Rock Anthuriums, Inc.; C & L Orchids; Ernest F. Carlbom; Cymbidium Partners; Floral Resources/Hawaii, Inc.; Flowers, Inc.; Glenwood Cymbidium Partners; Green Point Nurseries, Inc.; Daniel T. Hata, dba Hata Farm; Hawaiian Anthuriums, Ltd.; Hawaiian Heart, Inc.; Albert Isa, dba Albert Isa Nursery; Kaimu Nursery, Inc., Kaohe Nursery; Margaret Kincaid, dba Anuenue Farms; Hawaiian Greenhouses, Inc.; Donna Carlbom; Island Agri Business, Ltd.; Kona Orchids, Inc.; Kupulau Anthurium Partners; Alan Kuwahara, dba Puna Floriculture; James S. Kuwahara, dba James S. Kuwahara Farm; Henry Liljedahl; Malaii Partners; James McCully; Mitsuo Miyatake; Curtis Y. Nakaoka, dba Kona Grown Nurseries; Mark Nozaki, Patrick Oka, dba Oka Nursery; Carl Okamoto; Wake Okamoto, dba Paradise Anthuriums; Neal Okimoto, dba Pacific Paradise Orchids; Orchid Partners; Pacific Nurseries, Inc.; Polynesian Orchids & Anthuriums, Inc.; Puna Flowers & Foliage, Inc.; George Shiroma, dba G. Shiroma Farms; Masao Sunada; Sunshine Farms; Samuel H. Taka, dba S. Taka; Sylvia Taka, dba S. Taka; Yosio Takemoto, dba Takemoto Farm; Norman Takemoto, dba Takemoto Farm; Cary Takemoto, dba Takemoto Farm; Morris Takemoto, dba Takemoto Farm; Fetulima Tamasese, dba Pacific Kona Orchids; Harold S. Tanouye & Sons, Inc.; Henry M. Terada, dba H & L Terada Farm; Loraine Terada, dba H & L Terada Farm; Uniwai I Limited Partners; Uniwai II Limited Partners; Vantanage Partners; Waiakea Partners; Dwight Walker, Jr., dba Puna Ohana Flowers; Bernice Walker, dba Puna Ohana Flowers; Yoso Kuwahara, Inc.; George Nakahima, dba G. Nakashima Farm; Jeffrey Newman, dba Newman's Nurseries; Clyde Okamoto, dba Ho'onanea Farms; Ronald Okazaki, dba Luhua Anthurium Nursery; Dora Okazaki, dba Luhua Anthurium Nursery; Masato Shiroma, dba Mae's Nursery; Mark Willman, dba Hawaii Orchids; Kalfred K. Yee, dba Exotics Hawaii Ltd., Defendants-Appellees, 42 F. App'x 1002

ORDER Pursuant to our June 20, 2002, Order, this case was remanded for the limited purpose of determining whether the district court would favorably entertain a motion for leave to amend the complaint in light of our intervening decision in Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 533 U.S. 966, 122 S.Ct. 4, 150 L.Ed.2d 787 (2001). We have received the district court’s order indicating that amendment of the complaint would be granted, and we now submit this case for decision.

The district court’s order of May 9, 2001, dismissing the amended complaint is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.