Edith Gomez, et al v. Laurie Hernandez
| EDITH GOMEZ and OSCAR VASQUEZ, individually and as the Personal Representative of the Estate of their unborn child hereinafter Baby Vasquez |
| LAURIE HERNANDEZ |
| 20-55626 |
| June 17, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 28, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Filed order (Deputy Clerk: LCC) On June 18, 2020, this court ordered appellants, within 21 days, either to move for voluntary dismissal of this appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The order warned appellants that failure to comply would result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal by the Clerk of the Court. To date, appellants have not complied with the courts June 18, 2020 order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. This order served on the district court shall, 21 days after the date of the order, act as and for the mandate of this court. [11769023] (WL) [Entered: 07/28/2020 11:29 AM] |
| Filing 5 The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 06/25/2020. 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.[11734342]. [20-55626] (AD) [Entered: 06/25/2020 06:44 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed (ECF) Appellants Edith Gomez and Oscar Vasquez Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 06/25/2020. [11734058] [20-55626] (La Costa, Joseph) [Entered: 06/25/2020 03:48 PM] |
| Filing 3 MEDIATION ORDER FILED: The court of appeals' records do not indicate that appellants hav filed a mediation questionnaire in accordance with Cir. R. 3-4. Within seven (7) days of the filing date of this order, appellants shall file a Mediation Questionnaire or dismiss the appeal voluntarily. [11733542] (LW) [Entered: 06/25/2020 12:47 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LCC): A review of the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the order challenged in the appeal may not be final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981) (order is not appealable unless it disposes of all claims as to all parties or judgment is entered in compliance with rule). 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. 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. [11725908] (WL) [Entered: 06/18/2020 10:29 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Appellants Edith Gomez and Oscar Vasquez Mediation Questionnaire due on 06/24/2020. Transcript ordered by 07/14/2020. Transcript due 08/13/2020. Appellants Edith Gomez and Oscar Vasquez opening brief due 09/22/2020. Appellee Laurie Hernandez answering brief due 10/22/2020. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11724619] (JBS) [Entered: 06/17/2020 10:03 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.
