Peter Kagel v. Jay Raftery, et al
| THOMAS EDWIN BEACH, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, JAY LAURENCE RAFTERY, COWDREY, ERICKSEN, ARBUTHNOT, KILDUFF, DAY & LINDSTROM INC., MELISSA T. DAUGHERTY, VOGL MEREDITH BURKE LLP, BEACH, COWDREY, JENKINS, LLP., EDWIN FORREST SHRYOCK, Jr., JASON WILLIAM MAUCK and JENKINS, LLP |
| PETER KAGEL |
| 20-17351 |
| December 2, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 28, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 Submitted (ECF) Opening Brief for review. Submitted by Appellees Beach, Cowdrey, Jenkins, LLP., Thomas Edwin Beach, Cowdrey, Melissa T. Daugherty, Ericksen, Arbuthnot, Kilduff, Day & Lindstrom Inc., Jenkins, LLP, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Jason William Mauck, Jay Laurence Raftery, Edwin Forrest Shryock, Jr., Vogl Meredith Burke LLP and Appellant Peter Kagel. Date of service: 01/28/2021. [11985400] [20-17351] (Kagel, Peter) [Entered: 01/28/2021 05:18 PM] |
| Filing 12 Filed (ECF) Appellant Peter Kagel Motion to file substitute or corrected brief. Date of service: 01/28/2021. [11985141] [20-17351] (Kagel, Peter) [Entered: 01/28/2021 03:19 PM] |
| Filing 11 Received 6 paper copies of the Opening Brief [ # 6 ] and 6 paper copies of the errata [ # 8 ] to the opening brief filed by Peter Kagel. [11983409] (SD) [Entered: 01/27/2021 01:54 PM] |
| Filing 10 Submitted (ECF) supplemental excerpts of record. Submitted by Appellees Melissa T. Daugherty and Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Date of service: 01/27/2021. [11982657] [20-17351] (Abraham, Stephen) [Entered: 01/27/2021 08:07 AM] |
| Filing 9 Submitted (ECF) Answering Brief for review. Submitted by Appellees Melissa T. Daugherty and Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Date of service: 01/27/2021. [11982655] [20-17351] (Abraham, Stephen) [Entered: 01/27/2021 08:05 AM] |
| Filing 8 Filed (ECF) Errata to Opening Brief ([ # 6 ] Brief Submitted for Review (ECF Filing)). Filed by Appellant Peter Kagel. Date of service: 01/26/2021. [11982337] [20-17351] (Kagel, Peter) [Entered: 01/26/2021 04:13 PM] |
| Filing 7 Filed clerk order: The opening brief [ # 6 ] submitted by Peter Kagel is filed. Within 7 days of the filing of this order, filer is ordered to file 6 copies of the brief in paper format, accompanied by certification (attached to the end of each copy of the brief) that the brief is identical to the version submitted electronically. Cover color: not applicable. The paper copies shall be submitted to the principal office of the Clerk. [11979343] (KT) [Entered: 01/25/2021 09:03 AM] |
| Filing 6 Submitted (ECF) Opening Brief for review. Submitted by Appellant Peter Kagel. Date of service: 01/22/2021. [11978464] [20-17351]--[COURT UPDATE: attached searchable PDF of opening brief. 01/25/2021 by KT] (Kagel, Peter) [Entered: 01/22/2021 02:47 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed order MEDIATION (SL): The Mediation Program of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals facilitates settlement while appeals are pending. See Fed. R. App. P. 33 and Ninth Cir. R. 33-1. By December 22, 2020, the parties are requested to inform the Circuit Mediator in writing whether the issues on appeal or the underlying dispute might be appropriate for settlement discussions. The submission is a confidential mediation communication protected by Ninth Circuit Rule 33-1 and should not be filed with the court. Instead, the written response to this order should either be mailed or emailed to the addresses below. Via mail: Stephen Liacouras, Chief Circuit Mediator, Circuit Mediation Office, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, James R. Browning United States Courthouse, P.O. Box 193939, San Francisco, CA 94119-3939. Via email: stephen_liacouras@ca9.uscourts.gov. For more detailed information about the Mediation Program and its procedures generally, please see the attachment to this order and the Mediation Program web site: www.ca9.uscourts.gov/mediation. The existing briefing schedule remains in effect. [11918264] (OC) [Entered: 12/08/2020 09:27 AM] |
| Filing 4 Filed (ECF) Appellees Melissa T. Daugherty and Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 12/03/2020. [11914473] [20-17351] (Abraham, Stephen) [Entered: 12/03/2020 03:42 PM] |
| Filing 3 The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 12/03/2020. 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.[11914037]. [20-17351] (AD) [Entered: 12/03/2020 12:44 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed (ECF) Appellant Peter Kagel Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 12/03/2020. [11913433] [20-17351] (Kagel, Peter) [Entered: 12/03/2020 08:59 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Peter Kagel opening brief due 01/22/2021. Appellees Thomas Edwin Beach, Beach, Cowdrey, Jenkins, LLP., Cowdrey, Melissa T. Daugherty, Ericksen, Arbuthnot, Kilduff, Day & Lindstrom Inc., Jenkins, LLP, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Jason William Mauck, Jay Laurence Raftery, Edwin Forrest Shryock Jr. and Vogl Meredith Burke LLP answering brief due 02/22/2021. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11912674] (JMR) [Entered: 12/02/2020 01:20 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.
