Mark Stuart, et al v. City of Scottsdale, et al
| MARK STUART and VIRGINIA G. STUART |
| CITY OF SCOTTSDALE, a Municipal Corporation and a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, WJ LANE, Husband, AKA Jim Lane, JOANN LANE, wife, GUY PHILLIPS, KATHY LITTLEFIELD, SOLANGE WHITEHEAD, SUZANNE KLAPP, Wife, LINDA MILHAVEN, Wife, VIRGINIA KORTE, Wife, JIM THOMPSON, Husband, KRISTEN THOMPSON, wife, BRUCE WASHBURN, husband, WASHBURN, Wife, named as Jane Doe Washburn, ERIC ANDERSON, husband, JENNIFER ANDERSON, wife and CAROLINE JAGGER, Wife |
| 22-16300 |
| August 26, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 12, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Streamlined request [5] by Appellant Mark Stuart in 22-15498, 22-16300 to extend time to file the brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant Mark Stuart opening brief due 11/25/2022. Appellees Eric Anderson, Jennifer Anderson, City of Scottsdale, Caroline Jagger, Suzanne Klapp, Virginia Korte, Joann Lane, WJ Lane, Kathy Littlefield, Linda Milhaven, Guy Phillips, JIm Thompson, Kristen Thompson, Washburn, Bruce Washburn and Solange Whitehead consolidated answering brief due 12/27/2022. The optional consolidated reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the consolidated answering brief. [12561772] [22-15498, 22-16300] (DLM) [Entered: 10/12/2022 03:50 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Opening Brief by Appellant Mark Stuart in 22-16300, 22-15498. New requested due date is 11/25/2022. [12561709] [22-16300, 22-15498] (Stuart, Mark) [Entered: 10/12/2022 03:26 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: SSR): The motions (Docket Entry Nos. [ # 12534804-4 ] and [ # 12535448-3 ] ) to consolidate are granted. Nos. 22-15498 and 22-16300 are consolidated. Appellees motion (Docket Entry No. [ # 12535455-3 ] ) to adopt the briefing schedule in No. 22-16300 is granted. The opening brief in No. 22-15498 has been filed. The opening brief in No. 22-16300 is due October 26, 2022. The consolidated answering brief is due November 28, 2022. The optional consolidated reply brief is due within 21 days after service of the consolidated answering brief. [12538332] [22-15498, 22-16300] (RT) [Entered: 09/12/2022 02:24 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed (ECF) Appellees Eric Anderson, Jennifer Anderson, City of Scottsdale, Caroline Jagger, Suzanne Klapp, Virginia Korte, Joann Lane, WJ Lane, Kathy Littlefield, Linda Milhaven, Guy Phillips, JIm Thompson, Kristen Thompson, Bruce Washburn and Solange Whitehead Motion to consolidate cases Motion to Consolidate Appeals 22 15498 and 22 16300 and Adopt Briefing Schedule of Case No 22 16300. Date of service: 09/07/2022. [12535461] [22-16300] (Davis, Lori) [Entered: 09/07/2022 04:15 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CKP): Order to show cause docket fee due [12528533] (CKP) [Entered: 08/29/2022 01:08 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANTS. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellants Mark Stuart and Virginia G. Stuart opening brief due 10/26/2022. Appellees Eric Anderson, Jennifer Anderson, City of Scottsdale, Caroline Jagger, Suzanne Klapp, Virginia Korte, Joann Lane, WJ Lane, Kathy Littlefield, Linda Milhaven, Guy Phillips, JIm Thompson, Kristen Thompson, Washburn, Bruce Washburn and Solange Whitehead answering brief due 11/28/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12527154] --[Edited 08/26/2022 by RT] (RT) [Entered: 08/26/2022 11:13 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.
