Emil Lawrence v. City and County of San Francis, et al
Defendant / Appellee: SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICER BADGE NUMBER 127, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICER BADGE NUMBER 804, SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT and JOHN DOE
Plaintiff / Appellant: EMIL LAWRENCE
Case Number: 19-15917
Filed: April 30, 2019
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit: Other

Opinions

We have the following opinions for this case:

Date Filed Description
July 29, 2021 EMIL LAWRENCE V. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCIS

Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on June 10, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
June 10, 2019 Filing 6 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: SM): Appellants motion (Docket Entry No. [ # 5 ]) for an extension of time to file the opening brief is granted. The opening brief is due November 29, 2019. The answering brief is due December 30, 2019. The optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. Appellants request (included within Docket Entry No. [ # 5 ]) for an extension of time to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as unnecessary. Appellant is already proceeding in forma pauperis. [11325247] (AF) [Entered: 06/10/2019 01:50 PM]
May 20, 2019 Filing 5 Filed Appellant Emil Lawrence motion to extend time to file appellant opening brief until 11/29/2019. Deficiencies: None. Served on 05/16/2019. [11308718] (RR) [Entered: 05/24/2019 12:04 PM]
May 16, 2019 Filing 4 Attorney Brian P. Ceballo in 19-15917 substituted by Attorney Thomas S. Lakritz in 19-15917 [11300782] (RR) [Entered: 05/16/2019 05:37 PM]
May 16, 2019 Filing 3 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Thomas S. Lakritz for Appellees City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Police Officer Badge Number 127, San Francisco Police Officer Badge Number 804 and SFPD. Substitution for Attorney Brian P. Ceballo, Esquire for Appellees City and County of San Francisco, SFPD, San Francisco Police Officer Badge Number 127 and San Francisco Police Officer Badge Number 804. Date of service: 05/16/2019. (Party previously proceeding without counsel: No) [11300765] [19-15917] (Lakritz, Thomas) [Entered: 05/16/2019 05:24 PM]
May 16, 2019 Filing 2 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Thomas S. Lakritz for Appellees City and County of San Francisco and San Francisco Police Officer Badge Number 127. Substitution for Attorney Brian P. Ceballo, Esquire for Appellees City and County of San Francisco, SFPD, San Francisco Police Officer Badge Number 127 and San Francisco Police Officer Badge Number 804. Date of service: 05/16/2019. (Party previously proceeding without counsel: No) [11299862] [19-15917] (Lakritz, Thomas) [Entered: 05/16/2019 10:58 AM]
April 30, 2019 Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Emil Lawrence opening brief due 06/25/2019. Appellees City and County of San Francisco, John Doe, San Francisco Police Department, San Francisco Police Officer Badge Number 127 and San Francisco Police Officer Badge Number 804 answering brief due 07/25/2019. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11282118] (RT) [Entered: 04/30/2019 12:04 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.

Search for this case: Emil Lawrence v. City and County of San Francis, et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant / appellee: SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICER BADGE NUMBER 127
Represented By: Brian P. Ceballo Esquire
Represented By: Thomas S. Lakritz Esquire
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant / appellee: CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Represented By: Brian P. Ceballo Esquire
Represented By: Thomas S. Lakritz Esquire
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant / appellee: SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICER BADGE NUMBER 804
Represented By: Brian P. Ceballo Esquire
Represented By: Thomas S. Lakritz Esquire
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant / appellee: SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT
Represented By: Brian P. Ceballo Esquire
Represented By: Thomas S. Lakritz Esquire
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant / appellee: JOHN DOE
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff / appellant: EMIL LAWRENCE
Represented By: Emil Lawrence
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?