William Gilliam v. Kathleen Watanabe, et al
| DAVID LAM, as Administrator, KATHLEEN N.A. WATANABE, The Hon., in her official capacity as Judge of the Fifth Circuit Court and GEORGE ROBINSON, as Receiver |
| WILLIAM H. GILLIAM |
| 20-16939 |
| October 6, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| WILLIAM GILLIAM V. KATHLEEN WATANABE |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 27, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 Streamlined request [2] by Appellant Mr. William H. Gilliam to extend time to file the brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant William H. Gilliam opening brief due 12/30/2020. Appellees David Lam, George Robinson and Kathleen N.A. Watanabe answering brief due 01/29/2021. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [11908003] (JN) [Entered: 11/27/2020 02:48 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Opening Brief by Appellant Mr. William H. Gilliam. New requested due date is 12/30/2020. [11907904] [20-16939] (Gilliam, William) [Entered: 11/27/2020 01:49 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant William H. Gilliam opening brief due 11/30/2020. Appellees David Lam, George Robinson and Kathleen N.A. Watanabe answering brief due 12/30/2020. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11849283] (JPD) [Entered: 10/06/2020 01:27 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.
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.
