Loyce Moore, et al v. City and County of San Franci, et al
| SEAN MOORE |
| KENNETH CHA, individually and in his capacity as a City of San Francisco Police Officer, COLIN PATINO, individually and in his capacity as a City of San Francisco Police Officer and CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO |
| LOYCE AMOS MOORE and CELO DAVIS MOORE |
| 20-17494 |
| December 28, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 24, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 Filed (ECF) Appellants City and County of San Francisco, Kenneth Cha and Colin Patino reply to response (). Date of service: 02/24/2021. [12015111] [20-17494] (Whitman, Christopher) [Entered: 02/24/2021 11:44 AM] |
| Filing 13 Filed (ECF) Appellee Celo Davis Moore response opposing motion ([ # 7 ] Motion (ECF Filing), [ # 7 ] Motion (ECF Filing)). Date of service: 02/17/2021. [12007534] [20-17494] (Pointer, Adante) [Entered: 02/17/2021 08:58 PM] |
| Filing 12 Filed (ECF) Appellees Celo Davis Moore and Loyce Amos Moore Motion for miscellaneous relief [Permission/Leave of Court to File Opposition to Motion to Stay District Court Proceedings Pending Appeal]. Date of service: 02/17/2021. [12007529] [20-17494] (Pointer, Adante) [Entered: 02/17/2021 08:51 PM] |
| Filing 11 Filed (ECF) Appellants Kenneth Cha, City and County of San Francisco and Colin Patino response to order to show cause dated 01/27/2021. Date of service: 02/17/2021. [12007425] [20-17494] (Whitman, Christopher) [Entered: 02/17/2021 05:29 PM] |
| Filing 10 MEDIATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED - DIAL-IN Conference, 04/13/2021, 10:30 a.m. Pacific Time. See order for details. [12007363] (BLS) [Entered: 02/17/2021 04:49 PM] |
| Filing 9 Added Attorney(s) Ayana C. Curry for party(s) Appellee Celo Davis Moore Appellee Loyce Amos Moore, in case 20-17494. [12003969] (NAC) [Entered: 02/16/2021 11:12 AM] |
| Filing 8 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Ayana C. Curry (Law Offices of John L. Burris, 7677 Oakport Street, Ste. 1120, Oakland, CA 94621) for Appellees Celo Davis Moore and Loyce Amos Moore. Date of service: 02/16/2021. (Party was previously proceeding with counsel.) [12003959] [20-17494] (Curry, Ayana) [Entered: 02/16/2021 11:10 AM] |
| Filing 7 Filed (ECF) Appellants Kenneth Cha, City and County of San Francisco and Colin Patino Motion to stay lower court action. Date of service: 02/05/2021. [11994880] [20-17494] (Whitman, Christopher) [Entered: 02/05/2021 03:55 PM] |
| Filing 6 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LCC): A review of the record reflects that the district court has certified this appeal, which challenges the district courts December 10, 2020 order denying qualified immunity, as frivolous. See Chuman v. Wright, 960 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, this court may lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See Foster v. City of Indio, 908 F.3d 1204, 1210 (9th Cir. 2018) (court of appeals has jurisdiction over interlocutory qualified immunity appeal only to the extent the issue appealed concern[s], not which facts the parties might be able to prove, but, rather, whether or not certain given facts show[] a violation of clearly established law) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The record further suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over the appeal filed by the City and County of San Francisco because the order challenged in the appeal may not be final or appealable as to the City and County. See Horton by Horton v. City of Santa Maria, 915 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2019); Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 900 (9th Cir. 2011) (Qualified immunity does not shield municipalities from liability.). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellants shall move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, either in its entirety or in part as to the City and County. If appellants elect to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. If appellants do not comply with this order, the Clerk shall dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. [11983613] (RT) [Entered: 01/27/2021 03:02 PM] |
| Filing 5 MEDIATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED - DIAL-IN Assessment Conference, 02/17/2021, 11:30 a.m. PACIFIC Time. The briefing schedule previously set by the court remains in effect. See order for instructions and details. [11955734] (BLS) [Entered: 01/07/2021 12:36 PM] |
| Filing 4 The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 01/04/2021. 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.[11951052]. [20-17494] (AD) [Entered: 01/04/2021 12:44 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed (ECF) Appellants Kenneth Cha, City and County of San Francisco and Colin Patino Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 01/04/2021. [11950828] [20-17494] (Whitman, Christopher) [Entered: 01/04/2021 11:26 AM] |
| Filing 2 Received notification from District Court re: payment of docket fee. Amount Paid: USD 505.00. Date paid: 12/31/2020. [11949939] (RT) [Entered: 12/31/2020 03:37 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Appellants Kenneth Cha, City and County of San Francisco and Colin Patino Mediation Questionnaire due on 01/04/2021. Transcript ordered by 01/28/2021. Transcript due 02/26/2021. Appellants Kenneth Cha, City and County of San Francisco and Colin Patino opening brief due 04/06/2021. Appellees Celo Davis Moore and Loyce Amos Moore answering brief due 05/06/2021. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11945956] (RT) [Entered: 12/28/2020 11:36 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.
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.
