Deborah Cooney v. The City of San Diego, et al
| DEBORAH COONEY |
| CITY OF SAN DIEGO, THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, JOHN KERR, IVAN BAROYA, BONNIE HSU, KEITH PHILIPS, GEORGE W. BREWSTER, Jr., DOMINICK ADDARIO, MD and THOMAS J. MASSEY, Jr. |
| 15-56277 |
| August 20, 2015 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 2, 2016. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Filed order (Deputy Clerk: EU) Dismissing case for failure to prosecute (Cir. Rule 42-1) Pursuant to Circuit Rule 42-1, this appeal is dismissed for failure to file opening brief. This order served on the district court shall constitute the mandate of this court. [9886344] (EU) [Entered: 03/02/2016 11:57 AM] |
| Filing 4 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: JW): On September 17, 2015, this court issued an order remanding this case to the district court for the limited purpose of allowing that court to rule on appellants August 19, 2015 motion for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal. On November 9, 2015, the district court issued an order granting appellants motion for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal. Accordingly, this appeal shall proceed. Briefing shall proceed as follows: appellants opening brief is due December 30, 2015; appellees answering brief is due January 29, 2016; and appellants optional reply brief is due within 14 days after service of appellees answering brief. If appellant fails to comply with this order, the appeal will be dismissed automatically by the Clerk under Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. [9760718] (WL) [Entered: 11/18/2015 01:23 PM] |
| Filing 3 Received copy of District Court order filed on 11/09/2015 ORDER granting plaintiff's motion to extend time for appeal. [9748992] (RL) [Entered: 11/09/2015 11:10 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed order (STEPHEN R. REINHARDT and JOHNNIE B. RAWLINSON) The district court entered judgment on August 6, 2014. Appellants motion for reconsideration was filed nunc pro tunc on September 2, 2014, and was therefore a timely tolling motion listed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4). The district court denied the motion for reconsideration on June 29, 2015. A review of the record demonstrates that, although the August 19, 2015 notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days from entry of the June 29, 2015 post judgment order, on August 19, 2015, appellant also filed a timely motion for an extension of time to appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) and/or to reopen the time to appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). The district court has not ruled on that motion. Accordingly, this appeal is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of allowing that court to rule on appellants August 19, 2015 motion. The district court is requested to serve a copy of its decision on this court at its earliest convenience. Briefing is stayed pending further order of this court. If the district court grants the motion for an extension of time to appeal, appellant does not need to file a new notice of appeal. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the district court judge. [9685983] (CKP) [Entered: 09/17/2015 12:50 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Deborah Cooney opening brief due 11/27/2015. Appellees Dominick Addario, Ivan Baroya, George W. Brewster Jr., Bonnie Hsu, John Kerr, Thomas J. Massey Jr., Keith Philips, The City of San Diego and The County of San Diego answering brief due 12/28/2015. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. [9654817] (RT) [Entered: 08/20/2015 04:54 PM] |
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.
