Joseph Dang v. David Pontier, et al
| JOSEPH DANG, an individual, DBA Law Office of Joseph Dang |
| TEOCO CORPORATION GROUP BENEFIT PLAN, a self funded group health plan, PAUL E. KIM, MD INC., a California corporation, TEOCO CORPORATION, a Deleware Corporation and UMR INC., a Deleware Corporation |
| DAVID PONTIER, an individual |
| GLENN C. NUSBAUM, PAUL E. KIM and KEVIN YOO |
| 21-55032 |
| January 13, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| JOSEPH DANG V. DAVID PONTIER, ET AL |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 10, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: MF): Appellants January 11, 2021 notice of appeal challenges several orders issued by the district court on December 14, 15, and 18, 2020. A review of the record demonstrates that the only order that appears to be appealable at this time is the December 18, 2020 order granting Joseph Dangs motion to enjoin. See 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall show cause why the scope of this appeal should not be limited to a review of the district courts December 18, 2020 order granting Joseph Dangs motion to enjoin. See id.; see also 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 Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)); Abex Corp. v. Ski's Enterprises, Inc., 748 F2d 513, 515 (9th Cir. 1984) (absent certification under Rule 54(b), orders concerning particular claims in interpleader actions are not appealable until all claims to the fund have been adjudicated); McCright v. Santoki, 976 F.2d 568, 569-70 (9th Cir. 1992) (order denying plaintiffs motion for Rule 11 sanctions against opposing counsel can be effectively reviewed on appeal from final judgment in underlying action); Branson v. City of Los Angeles, 912 F.2d 334, 336 (9th Cir. 1990) (denial of reconsideration of non-appealable order is itself not appealable). If appellant elects to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. If appellant does not comply with this order, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. [12030289] (CKP) [Entered: 03/10/2021 01:55 AM] |
| Filing 5 Filed Appellant David Pontier motion to appoint counsel. Deficiencies: None. [11998642] (RR) [Entered: 02/10/2021 05:46 AM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant David Pontier motion to extend time to file appellant opening brief until 05/07/2021. Deficiencies: None. [11998641] (RR) [Entered: 02/10/2021 05:45 AM] |
| Filing 3 Streamlined request by Appellant David Pontier to extend time to file the brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant David Pontier opening brief due 04/12/2021. Appellee Joseph Dang answering brief due 05/12/2021. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [11995122] (BG) [Entered: 02/05/2021 05:58 PM] |
| Filing 2 Received notification from District Court re: payment of docket fee. Amount Paid: USD 505.00. Date paid: 01/22/2021. [11989361] (RT) [Entered: 02/02/2021 09:13 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant David Pontier opening brief due 03/12/2021. Appellee Joseph Dang answering brief due 04/12/2021. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [11962516] (JBS) [Entered: 01/13/2021 01:56 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.
