Seberaino Jimenez v. Progressive Preferred Insuranc
| PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPANY |
| SEBERAINO JIMENEZ |
| 20-15910 |
| May 13, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| SEBERAINO JIMENEZ V. PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED INS. |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 15, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 MEDIATION ORDER FILED: This case is RELEASED from the Mediation Program. All further inquiries regarding this appeal, including request for extensions of time, should be directed to the Clerk's Office. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant settlement discussions while the appeal is pending. [11722174] (VS) [Entered: 06/15/2020 03:00 PM] |
| Filing 9 Terminated Steven J. Hulsman for Progressive Preferred Insurance Company in 20-15910, Jared Lynn Sutton for Progressive Preferred Insurance Company in 20-15910 [11705234] (CW) [Entered: 05/29/2020 01:23 PM] |
| Filing 8 Filed (ECF) Notice of withdrawal of counsel. Filed by Steven J. Hulsman for Appellee Progressive Preferred Insurance Company and Jared Lynn Sutton, Esquire for Appellee Progressive Preferred Insurance Company. Party proceeding without counsel: No. Date of service: 05/29/2020. [11705125] [20-15910] (Sutton, Jared) [Entered: 05/29/2020 12:43 PM] |
| Filing 7 MEDIATION ORDER FILED: By 06/09/2020, counsel to email Circuit Mediator regarding settlement potential. Include Ninth Circuit case number in subject line. This communication will be kept confidential, if requested, and should not be filed with the court. The existing briefing schedule remains in effect. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. [11700903] (VS) [Entered: 05/26/2020 01:43 PM] |
| Filing 6 The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 05/21/2020. 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.[11698624]. [20-15910] (AD) [Entered: 05/21/2020 06:44 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed (ECF) Appellant Seberaino Jimenez Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 05/21/2020. [11698406] [20-15910] (Abney, David) [Entered: 05/21/2020 03:55 PM] |
| Filing 4 MEDIATION ORDER FILED: The court of appeals' records do not indicate that appellant has filed a mediation questionnaire in accordance with Cir. R. 3-4. Within seven (7) days of the filing date of this order, appellant shall file a Mediation Questionnaire or dismiss the appeal voluntarily. [11698169] (LW) [Entered: 05/21/2020 02:35 PM] |
| Filing 3 Fee status changed ( [Case Number 20-15910: Paid] ). [11690862] (TSP) [Entered: 05/14/2020 12:00 PM] |
| Filing 2 Received copy of amended notice of appeal from district court filed 5/13/20. [11690442] (CW) [Entered: 05/14/2020 08:21 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Seberaino Jimenez Mediation Questionnaire due on 05/20/2020. Transcript ordered by 06/12/2020. Transcript due 07/13/2020. Appellant Seberaino Jimenez opening brief due 08/21/2020. Appellee Progressive Preferred Insurance Company answering brief due 09/21/2020. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11689979] (RT) [Entered: 05/13/2020 03:03 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.
