In Re: Richard Coatney
| Richard Coatney |
| The United States Internal Revenue Service |
| Richard Coatney |
| 2:2011cv03660 |
| April 28, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| James V. Selna |
| Bankruptcy Appeal (801) |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
16
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge James V. Selna, re Order to Show Cause 15 : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (rla)
|
|
Filing
15
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge James V. Selna: The Court, ORDERS appellant(s)to show cause in writing no later than September 19, 2011 why this action should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. Counsel is advised that the Court will consider the filing of the following documents in Bankruptcy Court with a status report to the District Court as an appropriate response to this Order to Show Cause, on or before the above date, to avoid dismissal: Appellant's opening brief. If this case has been settled and/or dismissed in the Bankruptcy Court you must file a separate dismissal in the District Court. The Court ORDERS the hearing on the Bankruptcy Appeal, currently set for Monday, September 12, 2011, vacated. (rla)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
