He v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, et al
| BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. |
| QI HE |
| GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, FANNIE MAE and HARMON LAW OFFICES, P.C. |
| 15-2442 |
| December 2, 2015 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit |
| Foreclosure |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 4, 2016. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| MANDATE issued. [15-2075, 15-2442] (GA) [Entered: 10/04/2016 08:03 AM] |
| JUDGMENT entered by Juan R. Torruella, Appellate Judge; Rogeriee Thompson, Appellate Judge and William J. Kayatta , Jr., Appellate Judge: On November 30, 2015, and February 3, 2016, this court issued orders for appellant to show cause why appeals 15-2075 and 15-2442 should not be dismissed for lack of finality. The appellant has filed pro se responses, which we have carefully reviewed. Appellant primarily contends that the district court's partial-dismissal order implicitly refused her request for a preliminary injunction, rendering the order immediately appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1). We assume, without deciding, that the district court's order dismissing the claims against certain defendants had the "practical effect" of refusing injunctive relief and that appellant has shown that the refusal of injunctive relief would cause "serious (if not irreparable) harm." Nwaubani v. Grossman, 806 F.3d 677, 680 (1st Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Nonetheless, in the circumstances of this case, appellant has not shown that the order can only be effectively challenged through an immediate appeal. Id. To the extent appellant contends the district court erred by denying her request for a certification under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b), this discretionary denial is not subject to review by this Court. See Rivera-Jimenez v. Pierluisi, 362 F.3d 87, 92 (1st Cir. 2004); see also C. Wright & A. Miller, 16 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. 3929 (3d ed.). Thus, we dismiss both appeals. Our judgment is without prejudice to appellant's right to file a new notice of appeal once the district court has disposed of all claims set out in the operative complaint and has entered a final judgment as to the case in its entirety. Dismissed. See Local Rule 27.0(c). [15-2075, 15-2442] (GA) [Entered: 09/12/2016 03:58 PM] |
ORDER: Attorney Nathalie K. Salomon, counsel for defendant-appellee Harmon Law Offices, P.C., in the district court, filed a notice of withdrawal as counsel, citing attorney Robert M. Mendillo's June 27, 2016, notice of appearance on defendant-appellee's behalf. Construing this as a motion for leave to withdraw, that request is allowed. [15-2442] (GA) [Entered: 06/28/2016 02:54 PM]
|
| NOTICE of appearance on behalf of Appellee Harmon Law Offices, P.C. filed by Attorney Robert M. Mendillo. Certificate of service dated 06/27/2016. [15-2442] (RMM) [Entered: 06/27/2016 10:16 AM] |
| NOTICE of appearance on behalf of Appellee Harmon Law Offices, P.C. filed by Attorney Robert M. Mendillo. Certificate of service dated 06/27/2016. [15-2442] (RMM) [Entered: 06/27/2016 10:31 AM] |
| NOTICE of Withdrawal filed by Appellee Harmon Law Offices, P.C.. Certificate of service dated 06/27/2016. [15-2442] (NKS) [Entered: 06/27/2016 10:43 AM] |
| CASE submitted. Panel: Juan R. Torruella, Appellate Judge; Rogeriee Thompson, Appellate Judge; William J. Kayatta, Jr., Appellate Judge. [15-2442] (SBT) [Entered: 10/13/2016 12:06 PM] |
| RESPONSE filed by Appellant Qi He to for lack of jurisdiction [ # 5990049-2 ] and informing the court that he will be requesting transcripts. Certificate of service was not included. [15-2442] (MA) [Entered: 04/19/2016 12:56 PM] |
| LETTER sent to Appellant Qi He regarding his March 17, 2016 correspondence. [15-2442] (MA) [Entered: 04/06/2016 02:26 PM] |
|
ORDER: In light of this court's show cause order addressed to appellant 893 Brush Hill Rd Milton, MA 02186 having been returned as undeliverable, the time for appellant to file a response to the February 3, 2016 order is enlarged to April 15, 2016. [15-2442] (MA) [Entered: 04/06/2016 02:22 PM]
|
| PRO SE LETTER filed by Appellant Qi He regarding his current address. Certificate of service was not included. [15-2442] (MA) [Entered: 03/22/2016 08:53 AM] |
| Mail returned as undeliverable to Appellant Qi He. Copy of 2/3/2016 ORDER. Forwarding address unknown. [15-2442] (MA) [Entered: 02/23/2016 08:26 AM] |
|
ORDER to Show Cause entered directing appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Show cause response due 02/17/2016. [15-2442] (MA) [Entered: 02/03/2016 08:49 AM]
|
| NOTICE of default and intent to dismiss issued. The appellant is directed to file a transcript report/order form or this case will be dismissed for lack of prosecution in accordance with 1st Cir. R. 3.0(b). Transcript report/order form due 02/04/2016. [15-2442] (MA) [Entered: 01/21/2016 10:02 AM] |
| CORRECTED NOTICE of default issued. Appellant failed to file a transcript report/order form by the deadline. If transcripts are necessary for this appeal, appellant is directed to file a transcript order form by 02/04/2016. Absent a timely response, this court will set a briefing schedule, if appropriate. [15-2442] (MA) [Entered: 01/21/2016 10:04 AM] |
| PRO SE LETTER filed by Party Qi He in 15-2075 and 15-2442 requesting a transcript. Certificate of service was not included. [15-2075, 15-2442] (MA) [Entered: 01/06/2016 12:11 PM] |
| CIVIL CASE docketed. Notice of appeal (doc. #49) filed by Appellant Qi He. Transcript Report/Order form due 12/16/2015. Fee due 02/17/2016. [15-2442]. CLERK'S NOTE: Docket entry was edited to modify the docket text. [15-2442] (MA) [Entered: 12/02/2015 10:18 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
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.
