Veronica Diaz, et al v. Marcus Peck
| VERONICA DIAZ, FRANCISCA CARVAJAL and MATTHEW NICKOL |
| MARCUS L. PECK |
| 25-2168 |
| July 11, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
| Other Statutory Actions |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 24, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 Mandate issued. No record to be returned. [13] [7482854] [25-2168] (EF) [Entered: 10/24/2025 11:33 AM] |
| FOR COURT USE ONLY: Certified copy of 10/02/2025 Final Order with Mandate sent to the District Court Clerk. [7482857-2] [7482857] [25-2168] (EF) [Entered: 10/24/2025 11:36 AM] |
Filing 12
ORDER: This appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. (See order for details). Thomas L. Kirsch II, Circuit Judge; Doris L. Pryor, Circuit Judge and Nancy L. Maldonado, Circuit Judge. [12] [7478408] [25-2168] (AP) [Entered: 10/02/2025 10:22 AM]
|
| Filing 11 Filed Response in Opposition by Appellees Francisca Carvajal, Veronica Diaz and Matthew Nickol to Appellant's Jurisdictional Memorandum (Doc. 6). [11][7469263] [25-2168] (Trueblood, Alexander) [Entered: 08/15/2025 04:06 PM] |
| Filing 10 Circuit Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement and Appearance filed by Attorney Alexander C. Trueblood for Appellees Francisca Carvajal, Veronica Diaz and Matthew Nickol. [10] [7469134] (L-No; E-Yes; R-No) [25-2168]--[Edited 08/15/2025 by JMB to reflect addition of counsel] (Trueblood, Alexander) [Entered: 08/15/2025 11:11 AM] |
| Filing 9 Filed Appellant Marcus L. Peck proposed order. [9] [7468386] [25-2168] (EF) [Entered: 08/12/2025 01:01 PM] |
|
Filing 8
ORDER re: Status inquiry and notice of courtesy resubmission of response to order to show cause, filed on 8/6/2025. A review of the docket shows that on August 6, 2025, the clerk received the appellants jurisdictional memorandum and accepted it for filing. The clerk will send the appellant a copy of the courts public docket. [ # 5 ] CDH [8] [7467731] [25-2168] (FP) [Entered: 08/08/2025 12:29 PM]
|
|
Filing 7
ORDER re: Jurisdictional memorandum. IT IS ORDERED that appellees shall file, on or before August 18, 2025, a response to appellants jurisdictional memorandum, addressing the jurisdictional issues raised in the courts order of July 11, 2025. JXK [7] [7467649] [25-2168] (JMB) [Entered: 08/08/2025 09:54 AM]
|
| Filing 6 Jurisdictional memorandum filed by Appellant Marcus L. Peck. [6] [7467335] [25-2168] (EF) [Entered: 08/06/2025 03:27 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed status inquiry and notice of courtesy resubmission of response to show cause order by Appellant Marcus L. Peck. [5] [7467330] [25-2168] (EF) [Entered: 08/06/2025 03:16 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed notice from the District Court that the appeal docketing fee was received. [4] [7465183] [25-2168] (CAG) [Entered: 07/25/2025 02:01 PM] |
| Filing 3 Docketing Statement filed by Appellant Marcus L. Peck. Prior or Related proceedings: No. [3] [7464987] [25-2168] (DAB) [Entered: 07/24/2025 03:06 PM] |
|
Filing 2
ORDER: Appellant shall file, on or before July 25, 2025, a brief memorandum stating why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure will satisfy this requirement. Briefing is SUSPENDED pending further court order. (See order for further details) [7462482] [2] [7462482] [25-2168] (JMB) [Entered: 07/11/2025 02:23 PM]
|
| Filing 1 Private civil case docketed. Fee due. Transcript information sheet due by 07/25/2025. Docketing Statement due for Appellant Marcus L. Peck by 07/15/2025. Fee or IFP forms due on 07/25/2025 for Appellant Marcus L. Peck. [1] [7462390] [25-2168] (FP) [Entered: 07/11/2025 10:37 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.
