In re: Charles Colburn, et al v. David Reaves, et al
| In the Matter of: CHARLES MICHAEL COLBURN |
| CHARLES MICHAEL COLBURN |
| DAVID M. REAVES, Chapter 7 Trustee and MEDMEN ENTERPRISES, INC. |
| 22-16350 |
| September 8, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 15, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 09/15/2022. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please use the following # link . Confidential submissions may include any information relevant to mediation of the case and settlement potential, including, but not limited to, settlement history, ongoing or potential settlement discussions, non-litigated party related issues, other pending actions, and timing considerations that may impact mediation efforts.[12541786]. [22-16350] (AD) [Entered: 09/15/2022 06:44 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed (ECF) Appellant Charles Michael Colburn Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 09/15/2022. [12541764] [22-16350] (Glynn, Janel) [Entered: 09/15/2022 05:27 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Charles Michael Colburn Mediation Questionnaire due on 09/15/2022. Appellant Charles Michael Colburn opening brief due 11/09/2022. Appellees Medmen Enterprises, Inc. and David M. Reaves answering brief due 12/09/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12536411] (RT) [Entered: 09/08/2022 03:38 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.
