Ruth Camel, Estate v. Shirley Weber, et al
| RUTH CAMEL ESTATE and RUTH CAMEL, ESTATE |
| SHIRLEY NASH WEBER, JUAN TORRES, LEE GARVEY, ANNA RUSSEL, TY NGUYEN and SYLVIA PHELAN |
| 22-16068 |
| July 21, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Personal Injury |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| RUTH CAMEL, ESTATE V. SHIRLEY WEBER, ET AL |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 6, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: DA): Appellants motion for default judgment and response to this courts August 16, 2022 order to show cause (Docket Entry No. [ # 6 ]) are referred to the panel that will be assigned to decide the merits of this appeal. The opening brief was filed on August 2, 2022. Because there is no appearance by appellees, briefing is complete. [12534335] (JBS) [Entered: 09/06/2022 04:00 PM] |
| Filing 6 Filed Appellant Ruth Camel, Estate wish for default judgment. Deficiencies: None. Served on 08/17/2022. [12521686] (RL) [Entered: 08/19/2022 03:52 PM] |
| Filing 5 Money Order number 28020170362 in the amount of $1.00 returned to Appellant as a fee is due at this time. [12521432] (JR) [Entered: 08/19/2022 02:36 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: DA): A review of the record indicates that the notice of appeal and opening brief were signed on behalf of The Ruth Camel Estate by Jamie, Instituted Executor. It does not appear that Jamie is an attorney admitted to practice before this court. A pro se litigant may not represent parties other than themselves. See United States ex rel. Stoner v. Santa Clara County Office of Educ., 502 F.3d 1116, 1126 (9th Cir. 2007) (appellant has no authority to prosecute action in federal court on behalf of others than herself); Simon v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co., 546 F.3d 661, 664-65 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that courts have routinely adhered to the general rule prohibiting pro se plaintiffs from pursuing claims on behalf of others in a representative capacity.). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant must show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed because the appellant The Ruth Camel Estate is not represented by an attorney. Appellants response must provide the full legal name and title of the person submitting filings on behalf of the estate. If appellant fails to comply with this order, the appeal will be dismissed automatically by the Clerk under Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is complete. [12517886] (CKP) [Entered: 08/16/2022 10:27 AM] |
| Filing 3 Filed original and 0 copies of Appellant Ruth Camel, Estate opening brief of 7 pages (Informal: Yes). Served on 07/28/2022. [12508041] (SML) [Entered: 08/02/2022 04:28 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed referral notice (Deputy Clerk:CKP): Referring to the district court for determination whether in forma pauperis status should continue for this appeal. [12499875] (CKP) [Entered: 07/22/2022 10:15 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEES. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Ruth Camel Estate opening brief due 09/22/2022. [12499084] (RT) [Entered: 07/21/2022 11:00 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.
