Michael Brooks v. Agate Resources, Inc.
| AGATE RESOURCES, INC., DBA Agate Healthcare (Oregon ABN 695284-96), DBA Apropo Benefits Management, LLC, DBA Employers Health Alliance, LLC, DBA Health Policy Research Northwest, DBA Lane Home Medical, LLC, DBA Lane Individual Practice Association, I |
| MICHAEL T. BROOKS |
| 19-35547 |
| June 28, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| MICHAEL BROOKS V. AGATE RESOURCES, INC. |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 1, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: JW): The courts records reflect that the notice of appeal was filed during the pendency of a timely-filed motion listed in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), and that motion is still pending in the district court. The June 26, 2019 notice of appeal is therefore ineffective until entry of the order disposing of the last such motion outstanding. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). Accordingly, proceedings in this court are held in abeyance pending the district courts resolution of the pending May 24, 2019 motion. See Leader Natl Ins. Co. v. Indus. Indem. Ins. Co., 19 F.3d 444, 445 (9th Cir. 1994). 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. [11350269] (CKP) [Entered: 07/01/2019 11:34 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed Appellant Michael T. Brooks motion to appoint pro bono counsel. Deficiencies: None. Served on 06/25/2019. [11348191] (JBS) [Entered: 06/28/2019 10:01 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Transcript ordered by 07/26/2019. Transcript due 08/26/2019. Appellant Michael T. Brooks opening brief due 10/04/2019. Appellee Agate Resources, Inc. answering brief due 11/04/2019. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11348189] (JBS) [Entered: 06/28/2019 09:59 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: Michael Brooks v. Agate Resources, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellee: AGATE RESOURCES, INC., DBA Agate Healthcare (Oregon ABN 695284-96), DBA Apropo Benefits Management, LLC, DBA Employers Health Alliance, LLC, DBA Health Policy Research Northwest, DBA Lane Home Medical, LLC, DBA Lane Individual Practice Association, I | |
| Represented By: | Stephen H. Galloway |
| Represented By: | Reilley D. Keating |
| 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: MICHAEL T. BROOKS | |
| Represented By: | Michael T. Brooks |
| 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.
