Bryan Booren, et al v. AELP Securitization Trust Seri, et al
| MERSCORP HOLDINGS, INC., FAY SERVICING, LLC, MB LAW GROUP LLP, KINGSTON D. BOWAN, US BANK, N.A., TRUMAN 2016 SC 6 TITLE TRUST, RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DAVID CRAMER, FNMA REMIC 2006-17 TRUST, WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, FANNIE MAE, MICHAEL J. FARRELL, ZEIVE BRODNAX & STEELE LLP, AELP SECURITIZATION TRUST SERIES 2015-1 and SCOTT D. CRAWFORD |
| BRYAN BOOREN and SHARIN R. METCALF |
| 21-35323 |
| April 26, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| BRYAN BOOREN V. AELP SECURITIZATION TRUST SERI |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 22, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Filed clerk order: The opening brief [ # 4 ] submitted by Bryan Booren and Sharin R. Metcalf 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. [12151307] (LA) [Entered: 06/22/2021 03:53 PM] |
| Filing 4 Submitted (ECF) Opening Brief for review. Submitted by Appellants Bryan Booren and Sharin R. Metcalf. Date of service: 06/21/2021. [12150108] [21-35323]--[COURT UPDATE: Updated docket text to reflect all party filers. 06/22/2021 by LA] (Booren, Bryan) [Entered: 06/21/2021 08:27 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed order MEDIATION (RSK): This case is RELEASED from the Mediation Program. [12134382] (WL) [Entered: 06/04/2021 02:10 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed order MEDIATION (RSK): 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 the pilot project. By May 13, 2021, 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 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 ([email protected]) or mail (Robert S. Kaiser, 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. [12096816] (WL) [Entered: 04/29/2021 11:50 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANTS. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellants Bryan Booren and Sharin R. Metcalf opening brief due 06/21/2021. Appellees MB Law Group et al. answering brief due 07/21/2021. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12087328] (JPD) [Entered: 04/26/2021 04:26 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.
