Lamarr Rowell v. James Dzurenda
Defendant / Appellee: JAMES E. DZURENDA
Plaintiff / Appellant: LAMARR ROWELL
Case Number: 19-17141
Filed: October 25, 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
November 2, 2020 LAMARR ROWELL V. JAMES DZURENDA

Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on December 18, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 18, 2019 Filing 5 Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS and DANIEL A. BRESS) The district court entered a final judgment on October 22, 2019. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration and a notice of appeal on October 24, 2019. On October 25, 2019, the district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on appellants motion for reconsideration because appellant filed a notice of appeal. Appellants October 24, 2019 motion for reconsideration was filed within 28 days after entry of the judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). Therefore, the notice of appeal is ineffective until entry of an order disposing of the motion. See id. Accordingly, proceedings in this court are held in abeyance pending the district courts resolution of the pending October 24, 2019 motion. See Leader Natl Ins. Co. v. Indus. Indem. Ins. Co., 19 F.3d 444, 445 (9th Cir. 1994); Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205, 206 (9th Cir. 1988). Within 14 days after the district courts ruling on the pending motion, appellant shall file a written notice in this court: (1) informing this court of the district courts ruling; and (2) stating whether appellant intends to prosecute this appeal. To appeal the district courts ruling on the post-judgment motion, appellant must file an amended notice of appeal within the time prescribed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. The Clerk shall serve this order on the district court. [11536883] (CKP) [Entered: 12/18/2019 10:51 AM]
December 2, 2019 Filing 4 Received original and 0 copies of Appellant Lamarr Rowell opening brief (Informal: Yes) 6 pages. Served on 11/29/2019. Major deficiencies: motions to appoint counsel pending. [11518663] (SML) [Entered: 12/03/2019 09:33 AM]
November 6, 2019 Filing 3 Filed Appellant Lamarr Rowell motion to appoint counsel. Deficiencies: None. [11491603] (JFF) [Entered: 11/06/2019 04:03 PM]
October 25, 2019 Filing 2 Filed Appellant Lamarr Rowell motion to appoint pro bono counsel. Deficiencies: None. Served on 10/24/2019. [11477948][COURT UPDATE: New Documents Attached, resne NDA,--[Edited 10/25/2019 by BY] (JPD) [Entered: 10/25/2019 11:25 AM]
October 25, 2019 Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLE. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Lamarr Rowell opening brief due 12/23/2019. [11477924] (JPD) [Entered: 10/25/2019 11:19 AM]

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: Lamarr Rowell v. James Dzurenda
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant / appellee: JAMES E. DZURENDA
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: LAMARR ROWELL
Represented By: Lamarr Rowell
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?