Michael Brown v. Barbara Hoy, et al
| MICHAEL BROWN |
| BARBARA HOY, admin of ESTATE OF ORA MAE GOGINS, MUSIC SALES CORPORATION, also known as EMBASSY MUSIC CORP., FREDERICK MUSIC COMPANY, ESTATE OF VINCE BRANDON and WISE MUSIC GROUP |
| 25-2050 |
| June 20, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Copyright |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 10, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 Mandate issued. No record to be returned. [15] [7479969] [25-2050] (NHV) [Entered: 10/10/2025 08:56 AM] |
| FOR COURT USE ONLY: Certified copy of 09/11/2025 Final Order and 10/02/2025 Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denial with Mandate sent to the District Court Clerk. [7479972-2] [7479972] [25-2050] (NHV) [Entered: 10/10/2025 09:00 AM] |
Filing 14
ORDER: Appellant Michael Brown Petition for Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En banc is DENIED. [14] [7478477] [25-2050] (AD) [Entered: 10/02/2025 12:18 PM]
|
| Filing 13 15 copies Filed Petition for Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En banc by Appellant Michael Brown. DIST. Pro se motion filed by Party Michael Brown to recall the mandate. 1 copy of petition for rehearing en banc tendered. [13] [7475495] [25-2050]--[Edited 09/18/2025 by CAH to reflect motion to recall mandate has been correctly docketed in 25-2071] (CAH) [Entered: 09/17/2025 02:25 PM] |
|
Filing 12
ORDER: On consideration of the papers filed in this appeal and review of the short record, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is LIMITED to a review of the district courts May 27, 2025, order denying appellant's motion for reconsideration. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the May 27, 2025, order of the district court is SUMMARILY AFFIRMED. (See order for further details) Frank H. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge; Michael Y. Scudder, Circuit Judge and Amy J. St. Eve, Circuit Judge. [12] [7474339] [25-2050] (JMB) [Entered: 09/11/2025 03:19 PM]
|
| Filing 11 Filed Appellant Michael Brown Citation of Additional Authority, per Circuit Rule 28(e). [11] [7471134] [25-2050] (DAB) [Entered: 08/27/2025 03:18 PM] |
| Filing 10 Pro se motion filed by Appellant Michael Brown for leave to file memorandum nunc pro tunc. [10] [7468946] [25-2050] (NHV) [Entered: 08/14/2025 02:10 PM] |
| Filing 9 Filed Pro Se Appellant Show Cause Response by Appellant Michael Brown to 07/21/2025 show cause order. [9][7468943] [25-2050] (NHV) [Entered: 08/14/2025 02:08 PM] |
| Filing 8 Filed Response by Appellant Michael Brown to 06/24/2025 order. [8][7467772] [25-2050] (EF) [Entered: 08/08/2025 02:15 PM] |
|
Filing 7
ORDER: The court, on its own motion, orders appellant to show cause for his failure to respond to the court's order of June 24, 2025. Appellants brief, submitted on July 18, 2025, does not address the issues identified in this courts June 24 order. Appellant shall file a response on or before August 4, 2025. Appellant is advised that failure to respond may result in the dismissal of this appeal. The clerk of this court shall attach a copy of the June 24, 2025, order to appellant's copy of this order. Sent Certified Mail. Receipt Number: 9589 0710 5270 0423 8786 72. JXK [7] [7463834] [25-2050] (JMB) [Entered: 07/21/2025 10:05 AM]
|
| Filing 6 1 copy Appellant's brief filed by Appellant Michael Brown. [6] [7463729] [25-2050] (CAH) [Entered: 07/18/2025 04:15 PM] |
| Filing 5 Docketing Statement filed by Appellant Michael Brown. Prior or Related proceedings: Yes. 25-2071 [5] [7463725] [25-2050] (CAH) [Entered: 07/18/2025 04:14 PM] |
|
Filing 4
ORDER: Appellant Michael Brown is directed to file the overdue Docketing Statement within 14 days from the date of this Rule to Show Cause. Docketing statement response due for Appellant Michael Brown by 07/21/2025. Sent Certified Mail. Receipt Number: 9589 0710 5270 1455 1976 18. [4] [7461418] [25-2050] (AD) [Entered: 07/07/2025 04:37 PM]
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER: Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that a notice of appeal in a civil case be filed in the district court within 30 days of the entry of the judgment or order appealed. In this case judgment was entered on June 4, 2024. On July 3, 2024, appellant moved for reconsideration, and the district court denied that motion on July 8, 2024. Appellant filed another motion for reconsideration on May 23, 2025, and the district court denied that motion on May 27, 2025. Because these motions were filed more than 28 days after the judgment, they did not affect the time to appeal the judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4); Banks v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., 750 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2014). The notice of appeal was then filed on June 18, 2025, over 11 months late with respect to the judgment and over 10 months late with respect to the July 8, 2024, order. The district court has not granted an extension of the appeal period, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and this court is not empowered to do so, see Fed. R. App. P. 26(b). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that appellant shall file, on or before July 8, 2025, a brief memorandum stating why this appeal should not be LIMITED to review of the May 27, 2025, order denying appellants second motion for reconsideration. Briefing is SUSPENDED pending further court order. JXK [3] [3] [7459254] [25-2050] (AP) [Entered: 06/24/2025 11:22 AM]
|
| Filing 2 This is notification that no appellee(s) or counsel for the appellee(s) were served in the District Court. [2] [7458949] [25-2050] (JMB) [Entered: 06/23/2025 10:39 AM] |
| Filing 1 Private civil case docketed. Fee paid. Docketing Statement due for Appellant Michael Brown by 06/25/2025. Transcript information sheet due by 07/07/2025. Appellant's brief due on or before 07/30/2025 for Michael Brown. [1] [7458948] [25-2050] (JMB) [Entered: 06/23/2025 10:35 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
