Ernest Jarrett, et al v. James Terrell, et al
| SHARON J. BRUNNER, LAW OFFICE OF SHARON J. BRUNNER, JAMES STEPHEN TERRELL and LAW OFFICE OF JAMES S. TERRELL |
| ERNEST L. JARRETT, P.C. and ERNEST JARRETT |
| 21-55263 |
| March 22, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 9, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 Added Attorney(s) Jonathan B. Frank for party(s) Appellee Law Office of Sharon J. Brunner Appellee Law Office of James S. Terrell Appellee Sharon J. Brunner Appellee James Stephen Terrell. [12069483] (RL) [Entered: 04/09/2021 01:17 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Jonathan B. Frank (Frank & Frank Law, 3910 Telegraph Road, Suite 200, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302) for Appellees Sharon J. Brunner, Law Office of James S. Terrell, Law Office of Sharon J. Brunner and James Stephen Terrell. Date of service: 04/09/2021. (Party was previously proceeding with counsel.) [12069465] [21-55263] (Frank, Jonathan) [Entered: 04/09/2021 01:10 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Transcript ordered by 04/16/2021. Transcript due 05/17/2021. Appellants Ernest L. Jarrett, P.C. and Ernest Jarrett opening brief due 06/25/2021. Appellees Sharon J. Brunner, Law Office of James S. Terrell, Law Office of Sharon J. Brunner and James Stephen Terrell answering brief due 07/26/2021. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12048684] (RT) [Entered: 03/22/2021 10:04 AM] |
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.
