Rudy Castaneda v. Andrew Saul
| ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security |
| RUDY CASTANEDA |
| 20-15991 |
| May 22, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 24, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Filed Appellant Rudy Castaneda sur-reply to the reply to the response to order to show cause [11732261] (NAC) [Entered: 06/24/2020 01:02 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed Appellant Rudy Castaneda motion to strike portion of Defendant's responsive pleading as untimely. Deficiencies: None. [11729472] (NAC) [Entered: 06/22/2020 02:26 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed (ECF) Appellee Andrew M. Saul reply to response to order to show cause dated 06/15/2020. Date of service: 06/15/2020. [11721116] [20-15991] (Jenkins, Chantal) [Entered: 06/15/2020 08:13 AM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Rudy Castaneda response to order to show cause. [11711227] (NAC) [Entered: 06/04/2020 01:20 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: JW): The district courts judgment was entered on the docket on December 17, 2019. Appellants notice of appeal was filed in the district court on May 21, 2020. Accordingly, the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was not filed within 60 days after entry of the district courts judgment. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional). Appellants notice of appeal states that appellant submitted a motion to vacate on January 13, 2020 and attaches a page of the motion. However, the document attached is not file stamped by the district court and a review of the district court docket does not reflect any motion filed on January 13, 2020. Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant elects to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. If appellant does not comply with this order, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending disposition of this order to show cause. [11700095] (CKP) [Entered: 05/26/2020 06:39 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Rudy Castaneda opening brief due 07/20/2020. Appellee Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security answering brief due 08/19/2020. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11698890] (JMR) [Entered: 05/22/2020 09:41 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: Rudy Castaneda v. Andrew Saul | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellee: ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security | |
| Represented By: | Chantal Jenkins 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 ] |
| Plaintiff / appellant: RUDY CASTANEDA | |
| Represented By: | Rudy Castaneda |
| 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.
