Nathaniel Williams v. Vegas Venture 1 LLC, et al
| NATHANIEL M. WILLIAMS |
| VEGAS VENTURE 1 LLC, MATTHEW FRESINSKI, HAROLD NORRIS, JOSE LEVIN, RICARDO RAMIREZ, CARLOS DOMINGUEZ, SHEMARIO JONES and CAFE AMERICANO |
| 21-16850 |
| November 3, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 7, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Filed order MEDIATION (JW): This case is RELEASED from the Mediation Program. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant settlement discussions. [12309088] (OC) [Entered: 12/07/2021 03:50 PM] |
| Filing 4 The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 11/22/2021. 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.[12296022]. [21-16850] (AD) [Entered: 11/22/2021 06:44 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Nathaniel M. Williams Mediation Questionnaire. Served on 11/10/2021. [12295798] (RL) [Entered: 11/22/2021 04:18 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed order MEDIATION (JW): 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. As part of a pilot project, the Mediation Program is exploring settlement potential in some cases in which one party is proceeding pro se (representing themselves without the assistance of an attorney). This case is being included in that pilot project. By December 3, 2021, the parties are requested to inform the Circuit Mediator in writing whether the issues on appeal or in the underlying dispute might be appropriate for settlement discussions. The written response to this order and all future written or spoken communication with the mediator are strictly confidential mediation communications protected by Ninth Circuit Rule 33-1 and cannot be disclosed outside the mediation process. The written response to this order should not be filed with the court; instead, the response should be sent directly to the Circuit Mediator by email (Jonathan_Westen@ca9.uscourts.gov) or mail (Jonathan Westen, 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). More detailed information about the Mediation Program and its procedures are included in the attachment to this order and on the Mediation Program web site (www.ca9.uscourts.gov/mediation). The existing briefing schedule remains in effect. (SEE ORDER FOR FULL TEXT) [12286555] (WL) [Entered: 11/15/2021 08:05 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES, AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Nathaniel M. Williams Mediation Questionnaire due on 11/10/2021. Transcript ordered by 11/29/2021. Transcript due 12/28/2021. Appellant Nathaniel M. Williams opening brief due 02/07/2022. Appellees Cafe Americano, Carlos Dominguez, Matthew Fresinski, Shemario Jones, Jose Levin, Harold Norris, Ricardo Ramirez and Vegas Venture 1 LLC answering brief due 03/08/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12276797] (HH) [Entered: 11/03/2021 10:00 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.
