Cindy Garcia v. Google, Inc., et al
| CINDY LEE GARCIA |
| NAKOULA BASSELEY NAKOULA, AKA Sam Bacile, MARK BASSELEY YOUSSEF, ABANOB BASSELEY NAKOULA, MATTHEW NEKOLA, AHMED HAMDY, AMAL NADA, DANIEL K. CARESMAN, KRITBAG DIFRAT, SOBHI BUSHRA, ROBERT BACILY, THOMAS J. TANAS, ERWIN SALAMEH, YOUSSEFF M. BASSELEY and MALID AHLAWI |
| GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware Corporation and YOUTUBE, LLC, a California limited liability company |
| OCCUPY LOS ANGELES |
| 12-57333 |
| December 27, 2012 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Copyright |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 3, 2013. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 Filed order (Deputy Clerk: CKP) Motion to dismiss case for failure to prosecute (Cir. Rule 42-1). Pursuant to Circuit Rule 42-1, this appeal is dismissed for failure to respond to order. This order served on the district court shall constitute the mandate of this court. [8539296] (CKP) |
| Filing 2 Filed order (Appellate Commissioner): On November 30, 2012, the district court denied plaintiff Cindy Garcia’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Garcia’s timely notice of appeal from that order is proceeding in this court as docket number 12-57302. On November 15, 2012, the district court denied appellant’s motion to intervene. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on December 17, 2012 challenging both the order denying a preliminary injunction and the order denying the motion to intervene. Appellant is not a party to the action below and therefore does not have standing to challenge the denial of a preliminary injunction. See Hoover v. Switlik Parachute Co., 663 F.2d 964, 966 (9th Cir. 1981) (appellant lacks standing to challenge order that pertains only to the co-defendant). Accordingly, the scope of this appeal is limited to a review of the November 15, 2012 order denying appellant’s motion to intervene. A review of this court’s docket reflects that the filing and docketing fees for this appeal remain due. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall pay to the district court the $455.00 filing and docketing fees for this appeal and file in this court proof of such payment or file in this court a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Failure to pay the fees or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis shall result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. The Clerk shall serve a Form 4 financial affidavit on appellant. (Pro Se) [8479808] (CKP) |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF APPELLANT IN PRO SE AND COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Fee due from Appellant Occupy Los Angeles on 12/17/2012. Referred to MOATT pursuant to FRAP 3-3. [8454475] (JN) |
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.
