Kenard Thomas v. County of Sacramento, et al
Defendant / Appellee: SCOTT JONES, NICHOLAS RUSSELL and COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
Plaintiff / Appellant: KENARD THOMAS
Case Number: 20-16443
Filed: July 28, 2020
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit: Other

Opinions

We have the following opinions for this case:

Date Filed Description
October 27, 2021 KENARD THOMAS V. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 2, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 2, 2020 Filing 10 MEDIATION ORDER FILED: This case is RELEASED from the Mediation Program. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant settlement discussions while the appeal is pending. [11810921] (CL) [Entered: 09/02/2020 01:12 PM]
August 24, 2020 Filing 9 The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 08/24/2020. 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.[11801123]. [20-16443] (AD) [Entered: 08/24/2020 06:44 PM]
August 24, 2020 Filing 8 Filed (ECF) Appellees County of Sacramento, Scott Jones and Nicholas Russell Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 08/24/2020. [11800168] [20-16443] (Riordan, Thomas) [Entered: 08/24/2020 12:45 PM]
August 17, 2020 Filing 7 Added Attorney(s) Thomas Leroy Riordan for party(s) Appellee County of Sacramento Appellee Scott Jones Appellee Nicholas Russell, in case 20-16443. [11790934] (NAC) [Entered: 08/17/2020 10:07 AM]
August 17, 2020 Filing 6 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Thomas L. Riordan (Porter Scott, 350 University Avenue, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95825) for Appellees County of Sacramento, Scott Jones and Nicholas Russell. Date of service: 08/17/2020. (Party was previously proceeding with counsel.) [11790859] [20-16443] (Riordan, Thomas) [Entered: 08/17/2020 09:49 AM]
August 12, 2020 Filing 5 MEDIATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED - DIAL-IN Assessment Conference, 09/01/2020, 11:00 a.m. PACIFIC Time. See order for instructions and details. [11787085] (CL) [Entered: 08/12/2020 04:45 PM]
August 10, 2020 Filing 4 The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 08/10/2020. 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.[11783119]. [20-16443] (AD) [Entered: 08/10/2020 12:44 PM]
August 10, 2020 Filing 3 Filed (ECF) Appellant Kenard Thomas Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 08/10/2020. [11782833] [20-16443] (Katz, Stewart) [Entered: 08/10/2020 11:15 AM]
August 6, 2020 Filing 2 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. [11779404] (LW) [Entered: 08/06/2020 09:54 AM]
July 28, 2020 Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Kenard Thomas Mediation Questionnaire due on 08/04/2020. Transcript ordered by 08/26/2020. Transcript due 09/25/2020. Appellant Kenard Thomas opening brief due 11/04/2020. Appellees County of Sacramento, Scott Jones and Nicholas Russell answering brief due 12/04/2020. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11769426] (RT) [Entered: 07/28/2020 01:51 PM]

Access additional case information on PACER

Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Search for this case: Kenard Thomas v. County of Sacramento, et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant / appellee: SCOTT JONES
Represented By: Carl Lee Fessenden
Represented By: Thomas Leroy Riordan
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 [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant / appellee: NICHOLAS RUSSELL
Represented By: Carl Lee Fessenden
Represented By: Thomas Leroy Riordan
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 [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant / appellee: COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
Represented By: Carl Lee Fessenden
Represented By: Thomas Leroy Riordan
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 [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff / appellant: KENARD THOMAS
Represented By: Stewart Katz
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 [ 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?