Haocheng v. YouTube Inc.
| HAOCHENG QIAN |
| YOUTUBE INC. and GOOGLE INC. |
| 24-1116 |
| April 26, 2024 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 26, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 NON-ADMITTED ATTORNEY, LaMarte Williams, Jr., orally informed to apply for admission forthwith and submit Addendum A to Notice of Appearance, NOTIFIED. [Entered: 04/26/2024 03:39 PM] |
| Filing 9 INSTRUCTIONAL FORMS, to Pro Se litigant, SENT. [Entered: 04/26/2024 03:14 PM] |
| Filing 8 DEFECTIVE DOCUMENT, Motion for reversal of District Court order, for jury trial, at docket entry 5, on behalf of Appellant Haocheng Qian, copy to pro se appellant, FILED. [Entered: 04/26/2024 03:05 PM] |
| Filing 7 CIVIL APPEAL, on behalf of Appellant Haocheng Qian, received on 04/25/2024, OPENED. [Entered: 04/26/2024 02:59 PM] |
| Filing 6 ELECTRONIC INDEX, in lieu of record, FILED. [Entered: 04/26/2024 02:57 PM] |
| Filing 5 MOTION, for reversal of the District Court order, for jury trial, on behalf of Appellant Haocheng Qian, FILED. No Service. [Entered: 04/26/2024 02:41 PM] |
| Filing 4 PAYMENT OF DOCKETING FEE, on behalf of Appellant Haocheng Qian, district court receipt #290692, FILED. [Entered: 04/26/2024 02:39 PM] |
| Filing 3 DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT, dated 03/29/2024, RECEIVED. [Entered: 04/26/2024 02:37 PM] |
| Filing 2 DISTRICT COURT RULING, dated 03/28/2024, RECEIVED. [Entered: 04/26/2024 02:36 PM] |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF CIVIL APPEAL, with district court docket, on behalf of Appellant Haocheng Qian, FILED. [Entered: 04/26/2024 02:34 PM] |
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.
