Jesse Santana, et al v. County of Yuba, et al
| DAVID VASQUEZ |
| JULIA SCROGIN, Yuba County Superior Court, TIMOTHY J. EVANS, CITY OF MARYSVILLE, CITY OF MARYSVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT and RANDALL ELLIOT, Marysville Police Officer |
| ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER |
| GENE STOBER, Yuba County District Attorney Investigator, COUNTY OF YUBA, JOHN R. VACEK, Yuba County Deputy District Attorney, PATRICK MCGRATH, Yuba County District Attorney, MELANIE BENDORF, Yuba County Deputy District Attorney and MARY BARR, Yuba County District Attorney Investigator |
| JESSE I. SANTANA |
| 19-17505 |
| December 16, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 14, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 MEDIATION ORDER FILED: This case is RELEASED from the Mediation Program. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant further settlement discussions. [11562569] (BLS) [Entered: 01/14/2020 05:47 PM] |
| Filing 6 Added Attorney(s) Thomas Leroy Riordan for party(s) Appellee Gene Stober Appellee Melanie Bendorf Appellee John R. Vacek Appellee Patrick McGrath Appellee Mary Barr Appellee County of Yuba, in case 19-17505. [11549679] (CW) [Entered: 01/03/2020 06:30 AM] |
| Filing 5 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Thomas L. Riordan (Porter Scott, 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, California) for Appellees Mary Barr, Melanie Bendorf, County of Yuba, Patrick McGrath, Gene Stober and John R. Vacek. Date of service: 01/03/2020. (Party was previously proceeding with counsel.) [11549677] [19-17505] (Riordan, Thomas) [Entered: 01/03/2020 06:27 AM] |
| Filing 4 MEDIATION ORDER FILED: The Mediation Program of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals facilitates settlement while appeals are pending. By 01/13/2020, counsel for all parties intending to file briefs in this matter are requested to inform the Circuit Mediator by email of their clients' views on whether the issues on appeal or the underlying dispute might be amenable to settlement presently or in the foreseeable future. This communication will be kept confidential, if requested... This communication should not be filed with the court... The existing briefing schedule remains in effect... [11546895] (BLS) [Entered: 12/30/2019 02:47 PM] |
| Filing 3 The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 12/23/2019. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . Confidential submissions may include any information relevant to mediation of the case and settlement potential, including, but not limited to, settlement history, ongoing or potential settlement discussions, non-litigated party related issues, other pending actions, and timing considerations that may impact mediation efforts.[11543010]. [19-17505] (AD) [Entered: 12/23/2019 06:44 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed (ECF) Appellant Jesse I. Santana Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 12/23/2019. [11542760] [19-17505] (Adams, Michael) [Entered: 12/23/2019 04:06 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Jesse I. Santana Mediation Questionnaire due on 12/23/2019. Transcript ordered by 01/10/2020. Transcript due 02/10/2020. Appellant Jesse I. Santana opening brief due 03/20/2020. Appellees Mary Barr, Melanie Bendorf, County of Yuba, Patrick McGrath, Gene Stober and John R. Vacek answering brief due 04/20/2020. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11533766] (RT) [Entered: 12/16/2019 02:16 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.
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.
