Seidel v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al
| Vicki Seidel |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and Commissioner of Internal Revenue |
| 3:2010cv05073 |
| November 9, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| Mono |
| Maxine M. Chesney |
| Howard R. Lloyd |
| Taxes (US Plaintiff or Defendant) |
| 26 U.S.C. ยง 7422 |
| Plaintiff |
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
22
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on September 11, 2012. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2012)
|
|
Filing
19
ORDER VACATING ORDER OF DISMISSAL; SETTING DATE FOR CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. The Court's order of May 1, 2012 dismissing the action is vacated and the above-titled case is restored to the calendar. The parties shall appear for a Case Management Conference on June 8, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. A Joint Case Management Statement shall be filed no later than June 1, 2012. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on May 18, 2012. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2012) (Entered: 05/18/2012)
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER GRANTING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR PLAINTIFF THOMAS E. SEIDEL'S ATTORNEYS TO ATTEND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE BY TELEPHONE. The administrative request is granted in part and Robert Alan Jones may appear by telephone on December 9, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 8, 2011. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/8/2011)
|
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 Northern 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.
