Tri Huynh v. Walmart, Inc., et al
| WAL-MART.COM USA LLC, RACHEL BRAND, GREGORY B. PENNER, TIMOTHY P. FLYNN, S. ROBSON WALTON, SETH BEAL, VALERIE RICETTI, AUDREY AU JOULINA, MELVENIA HA, EUGENE SCALIA, RYAN CARLTON STEWART, CHRIS WILSON, SUSANNA G. SCHUEMANN, MARK MARCHIONE, KARI DERUBERTIS, KATHY VON LINDERN, RENEE QUEZADA, ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, PAYNE & FEARS LLP, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION and MATTHEW BOYLE |
| TRI MINH HUYNH |
| WALMART, INC., A Delaware corporation, DOUG MCMILLON, BRETT BIGGS, MARC LORE, GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, Jr., RACHEL SUSAN BRASS, THE DERUBERTIS LAW FIRM, APC, DAVID M. DERUBERTIS, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., ROBERT F. OHMES, EPIQ EDISCOVERY SOLUTIONS, INC., DOUGLAS KASALES and LIGHTHOUSE DOCUMENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. |
| 22-16188 |
| August 5, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Civil (Rico) |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| TRI HUYNH V. WALMART, INC., ET AL |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 3, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 Filed (ECF) Appellant Mr. Tri Minh Huynh Correspondence: As Per this Court's Order, the Appellant filed this letter to notify the Court that Judge Corley denied and disposed his Rule 59(e) and the embedded Rule 15(a)(2) motions. Appellant wishes to prosecute this appeal and requests a new briefing schedule.. Date of service: 10/03/2022 [12554356] [22-16188] (Huynh, Tri) [Entered: 10/03/2022 11:17 AM] |
| Filing 6 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: DA): Appellants motion to stay the briefing schedule (Docket Entry No. [ # 5 ] ) is granted. The courts records reflect that appellant filed a timely motion listed in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), and that motion is still pending in the district court. The notice of appeal is therefore ineffective until entry of the order disposing of the last such motion outstanding. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). Accordingly, proceedings in this court are held in abeyance pending the district courts resolution of the pending September 1, 2022 motion. See Leader Natl Ins. Co. v. Indus. Indem. Ins. Co., 19 F.3d 444, 445 (9th Cir. 1994); Tripati v. Henman, 845 F.2d 205, 206 (9th Cir. 1988). Within 14 days after the district courts ruling on the pending September 1, 2022 motion, appellant must file a written notice in this court: (1) informing this court of the district courts ruling; and (2) stating whether appellant intends to prosecute this appeal. To appeal the district courts ruling on the post-judgment motion, appellant must file an amended notice of appeal within the time prescribed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. The Clerk will serve this order on the district court. [12538431] (RT) [Entered: 09/12/2022 03:08 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed (ECF) Appellant Mr. Tri Minh Huynh Motion for miscellaneous relief [APPELLANT'S MOTION TO HOLD APPEAL IN ABEYANCE AND TO SUSPEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE PENDING DISTRICT COURT'S RULING ON THE APPELLANT'S MOTION TO AMEND JUDGEMENT.]. Date of service: 09/02/2022. [12532599] [22-16188] (Huynh, Tri) [Entered: 09/02/2022 12:13 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: DA): Appellants August 7, 2022 correspondence and amended notice of appeal are construed in part as a motion to voluntarily dismiss certain appellees from this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). So construed, the motion to voluntarily dismiss the appeal with respect to appellees Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Theodore, J. Boutrous, Jr., Rachel S. Brass, Epiq eDiscovery Solutions, Inc., Douglas Kasales, and Lighthouse Document Technologies, Inc., is granted. The Clerk will update this courts docket to reflect that Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Theodore, J. Boutrous, Jr., Rachel S. Brass, Epiq eDiscovery Solutions, Inc., Douglas Kasales, and Lighthouse Document Technologies, Inc., are not appellees in this appeal. The appeal will proceed with respect to the remaining appellees. The briefing schedule established on August 5, 2022 remains in effect. Appellants opening brief is due November 14, 2022. The remaining appellees answering brief is due December 14, 2022. Appellants optional reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the answering brief. Because appellant is proceeding without counsel, appellant is not required to file excerpts of record. See 9th Cir. R. 30-1.3. If appellant does not file excerpts of record, appellees must file Supplemental Excerpts of Record that contain all of the documents that are cited in the pro se opening brief or otherwise required by Rule 30-1.4, as well as the documents that are cited in the answering brief. See id [12515319] (RT) [Entered: 08/11/2022 03:13 PM] |
| Filing 3 Received copy of amended notice of appeal from district court. [12512303] (NAC) [Entered: 08/08/2022 03:14 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed (ECF) Appellant Mr. Tri Minh Huynh Correspondence: Dear Ms. Dwyer: I am the appellant in Tri Huynh v. Walmart, Inc., et al, Case No. 22-16188. Attached in this filing is my amended notice of appeal and amended representation statement. Please update the list of appellees for this case. thank you.. Date of service: 08/07/2022 [12511232] [22-16188] (Huynh, Tri) [Entered: 08/07/2022 12:49 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 09/06/2022. Transcript due 10/04/2022. Appellant Tri Minh Huynh opening brief due 11/14/2022. Appellees BOFA Securities, Inc., Brett Biggs, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Rachel Susan Brass, David M. Derubertis, Epiq eDiscovery Solutions, Inc., Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Douglas Kasales, Lighthouse Document Technologies, Inc., Marc Lore, Doug McMillon, Robert F. Ohmes, The deRubertis Law Firm, APC and Walmart, Inc. answering brief due 12/14/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12510931] (RT) [Entered: 08/05/2022 04:47 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.
