Pacific Tech Construction, Inc v. Secretary of Labor
| PACIFIC TECH CONSTRUCTION, INC. |
| SECRETARY OF LABOR |
| 19-73073 |
| December 4, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 6, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LCC): A review of the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this petition because the petition was not filed within 60 days after the date the challenged order became final on October 4, 2019. See 29 U.S.C. 660(a); Fed. R. App. P. 15; see also Nyffeler Constr., Inc. v. Secy of Labor, 760 F.3d 837, 841 (8th Cir. 2014) (dismissing petition for review of final order of Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission where petition not filed within 60 days after date decision became final). Within 21 days after the date of this order, petitioner shall move for voluntary dismissal of the petition or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If petitioner elects to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. If petitioner does not comply with this order, the Clerk shall dismiss this petition pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. [11524388] (JMR) [Entered: 12/06/2019 04:08 PM] |
| Filing 3 The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 12/06/2019. 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.[11523891]. [19-73073] (AD) [Entered: 12/06/2019 12:44 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed (ECF) Petitioner Pacific Tech Construction, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 12/06/2019. [11523613] [19-73073] (Owada, Aaron) [Entered: 12/06/2019 10:31 AM] |
| Filing 1 FILED PETITION FOR REVIEW. DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. NOTIFIED RESPONDENTS OF FILING. SEND MQ: Yes. Petitioner Pacific Tech Construction, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire due on 12/11/2019. Petitioner brief due 02/24/2020 for Pacific Tech Construction, Inc.. Respondent brief due 03/23/2020 for Secretary of Labor. Petitioner's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11520661] (JMR) [Entered: 12/04/2019 11:14 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: Pacific Tech Construction, Inc v. Secretary of Labor | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: SECRETARY OF LABOR | |
| Represented By: | Edward Dean Sieger 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 ] |
| Petitioner: PACIFIC TECH CONSTRUCTION, INC. | |
| Represented By: | Aaron K. Owada |
| 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.
