Ripdaman Narula v. Orange County Superior Court, et al
| RIPDAMAN NARULA |
| ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, CITY OF LAGUNA NIGUEL, CITY OF SANTA ANA, ARBITRATION FORUMS, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL and DOES, 1 thru 20 inclusive |
| 21-55974 |
| September 8, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| RIPDAMAN NARULA V. ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, ET AL |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 5, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 Streamlined request by Appellant Ripdaman Narula to extend time to file the brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant Ripdaman Narula opening brief due 12/08/2021. Appellees Arbitration Forums, California Highway Patrol, City of Laguna Niguel, City of Santa Ana, Does, Orange County Sheriff's Department and Orange County Superior Court answering brief due 01/07/2022. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [12280020] (JN) [Entered: 11/05/2021 02:46 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Ripdaman Narula opening brief due 11/08/2021. Appellees Arbitration Forums, California Highway Patrol, City of Laguna Niguel, City of Santa Ana, Does, Orange County Sheriff's Department and Orange County Superior Court answering brief due 12/08/2021. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12222790] (JBS) [Entered: 09/08/2021 10:48 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.
