Ching-Chin Chen v. Santa Monica College District
Plaintiff / Appellant: CHING-CHIN CHEN
Defendant / Appellee: SANTA MONICA COLLEGE DISTRICT
Case Number: 19-56154
Filed: October 1, 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 17, 2020 CHING-CHIN CHEN V. SANTA MONICA COLLEGE DISTRICT

Docket Report

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

Date Filed Document Text
November 18, 2019 Filing 10 Filed (ECF) Appellee Santa Monica College District response to Appellants statement that appeal should go forward. Date of service: 11/18/2019. [11503255] [19-56154] --[COURT UPDATE: Updated docket text to reflect content of filing. 11/20/2019 by TYL] (Stumreiter, John) [Entered: 11/18/2019 11:49 PM]
November 12, 2019 Filing 9 Filed Appellant Ching-Chin Chen statement that appeal should go forward. Served on 11/08/2019. [11497246] (RL) [Entered: 11/13/2019 09:57 AM]
November 1, 2019 Filing 8 Received notification from District Court re: payment of docket fee. Amount Paid: USD 505.00. Date paid: 11/01/2019. [11486482] (BY) [Entered: 11/01/2019 02:36 PM]
October 21, 2019 Filing 7 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CO): A review of the district courts docket reflects that the district court has certified that this appeal is not taken in good faith and has revoked appellants in forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). This court may dismiss a case at any time, if the court determines the case is frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2). Within 35 days after the date of this order, appellant must: (1) file a motion to dismiss this appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), or (2) file a statement explaining why the appeal is not frivolous and should go forward. If appellant files a statement that the appeal should go forward, appellant also must: (1) file in this court a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, OR (2) pay to the district court $505.00 for the filing and docketing fees for this appeal AND file in this court proof that the $505.00 was paid. If appellant does not respond to this order, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal for failure to prosecute, without further notice. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. If appellant files a motion to dismiss the appeal, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b). If appellant submits any response to this order other than a motion to dismiss the appeal, the court may dismiss this appeal as frivolous, without further notice. If appellant files a statement that the appeal should go forward, appellee may file a response within 10 days after service of appellants statement. The briefing schedule for this appeal is stayed. The Clerk shall serve on appellant: (1) a form motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal, (2) a form statement that the appeal should go forward, and (3) a Form 4 financial affidavit. Appellant may use the enclosed forms for any motion to dismiss the appeal, statement that the appeal should go forward, and/or motion to proceed in forma pauperis. [11471079] (CKP) [Entered: 10/21/2019 11:29 AM]
October 18, 2019 Filing 6 Filed Appellant Ching-Chin Chen FORM 14 motion for extension of time. Deficiencies: None. Served on 10/15/2019. [11470246] (RL) [Entered: 10/18/2019 04:14 PM]
October 15, 2019 Filing 5 Received copy of District Court order filed on 10/15/2019 PROCEEDINGS (in chambers): Notice of determination regarding plaintiff's in forma pauperis status (Dkt. No. 64). Therefore, the Court REVOKES Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status for the appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3). [11464682] (RL) [Entered: 10/15/2019 03:32 PM]
October 11, 2019 Filing 4 Filed (ECF) Appellee Santa Monica College District response opposing motion ([ # 3 ] Party Motion). Date of service: 10/11/2019. [11462868] [19-56154] (Stumreiter, John) [Entered: 10/11/2019 10:52 PM]
October 7, 2019 Filing 3 Filed Appellant Ching-Chin Chen request for appointment of counsel (document formatted as letter). Deficiencies: None. Served on 10/04/2019. [11457808] (RL) [Entered: 10/08/2019 11:28 AM]
October 2, 2019 Filing 2 Filed referral notice (Deputy Clerk:CKP): Referring to the district court for determination whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal. [11451637] (CKP) [Entered: 10/02/2019 01:35 PM]
October 1, 2019 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 10/28/2019. Transcript due 11/26/2019. Appellant Ching-Chin Chen opening brief due 01/06/2020. Appellee Santa Monica College District answering brief due 02/04/2020. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11449577] (JBS) [Entered: 10/01/2019 08:57 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: Ching-Chin Chen v. Santa Monica College District
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff / appellant: CHING-CHIN CHEN
Represented By: Ching-Chin Chen
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: SANTA MONICA COLLEGE DISTRICT
Represented By: John J. Stumreiter
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?