In Re: Robert & Diane De Long
| Andrew Fox and Marina Fox |
| Robert Michael De Long |
| Diane Michelle De Long |
| Office of the U.S. Trustee (Sac) |
| 2:2014cv02947 |
| December 18, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Kimberly J. Mueller |
| Appeal |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1334 |
| None |
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
21
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/7/16 ORDERING that the bankruptcy court's order granting De Long's motion in limine and denying the Foxes' motions in limine is AFFIRMED. The bankruptcy court's orders exc luding the testimony of Eric London and Randall Stout, granting the motion for judgment on partial findings, and entering judgment in favor of Robert De Long are VACATED and REVERSED. This case is REMANDED for a new trial consistent with this order. CASE CLOSED (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/26/15 GRANTING 6 Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time for Appellant to File Opening Brief. Their opening brief shall be filed no later than 2/16/15. Appellee's opening brief shall be filed within 14 days of service of appellants' opening brief, and appellants' reply brief, if any, may be filed within 14 days after service of appellee's opening brief, as previously ordered. (Meuleman, A)
|
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 Eastern 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.
