Lidia Gonzalez, et al v. City of Long Beach, et al
| RICHARD ARCIGA and YESENIA MARTINEZ |
| COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, PATRICK FREY, ANTON FISCHER and DOES, 1 through 10, inclusive |
| LIDIA GONZALEZ |
| CITY OF LONG BEACH, ADRIAN GARCIA, MARK BUGEL, CHRISTOPHER BRAMMER, MARY MARSCHKE and ALFREDO CHAIREZ |
| 21-55709 |
| July 6, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 27, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Filed (ECF) Appellant Lidia Gonzalez motion for reconsideration of dispositive Clerk Order of 08/23/2021. Date of service: 08/27/2021. [12214357] [21-55709] (Steering, Jerry) [Entered: 08/27/2021 04:58 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed order (Deputy Clerk: LCC): On July 15, 2021, this court ordered appellant, within 21 days, either to move for voluntary dismissal of this appeal or to show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The order warned appellant that failure to comply would result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal by the Clerk of the Court. To date, appellant has not complied with the courts 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. [12208867] (AF) [Entered: 08/23/2021 02:17 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 under 1291 unless it disposes of all claims as to all parties or judgment is entered in compliance with Rule 54(b)). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 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 shall dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. [12173762] (AF) [Entered: 07/15/2021 02:41 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Lidia Gonzalez Mediation Questionnaire due on 07/13/2021. Transcript ordered by 08/02/2021. Transcript due 08/31/2021. Appellant Lidia Gonzalez opening brief due 10/12/2021. Appellees Christopher Brammer, Mark Bugel, Alfredo Chairez, City of Long Beach, Adrian Garcia and Mary Marschke answering brief due 11/12/2021. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12163677] (JBS) [Entered: 07/06/2021 02:15 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.
