Robert Kreb v. Jacksons Food Stores, Inc., et al
| LIFE FLIGHT NETWORK, LLC, an Oregon corporation |
| ROBERT KREB |
| JACKSONS FOOD STORES, INC., a Nevada corporation, AKA Jacksons of Idaho, JACKSON JET CENTER, LLC, an Idaho corporation, CONYAN AVIATION, INC., an Idaho corporation, AKA Jackson Jet Center, JOHN DALE JACKSON, JEFFREY DALE JACKSON and WALDON WAYNE WERNER |
| 22-35093 |
| February 2, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Civil Rights Jobs |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 25, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Filed order (Deputy Clerk: DA) : On February 2, 2022, this court ordered appellant, within 21 days, to move for voluntary dismissal of this appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The order warned appellant that failure to comply would result in the automatic dismissal of the appeal by the Clerk of the Court. To date, appellant has not complied with the courts order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. All pending motions are denied as moot. This order served on the district court shall, 21 days after the date of the order, act as and for the mandate of this court. [12405509] (RT) [Entered: 03/25/2022 04:56 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed (ECF) Appellees Conyan Aviation, Inc., Jackson Jet Center, LLC and Jacksons Food Stores, Inc. Motion to dismiss the case. Date of service: 02/02/2022. [12359294] [22-35093] (Rossman, Eric) [Entered: 02/02/2022 04:11 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: JW): The district courts post-judgment order challenged in the notice of appeal was entered in the district court on December 29, 2021. Appellants notice of appeal was filed in the district court on January 31, 2022. Accordingly, the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days after entry of the district courts post-judgment order. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional); see also Hollywood v. City of Santa Maria, 886 F.2d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 1989) (no separate judgment required for order denying post-judgment motion; time to appeal begins to run from entry of order denying post-judgment motion). The record does not reflect that appellant has filed a motion in the district court to extend or reopen the time for appeal from the December 29, 2021 order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (6), and 26(b)(1). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant must move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal, or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant elects to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. If appellant does not comply with this order, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. [12358986] (CKP) [Entered: 02/02/2022 02:21 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 03/02/2022. Transcript due 04/01/2022. Appellant Robert Kreb opening brief due 05/10/2022. Appellees Conyan Aviation, Inc., Jeffrey Dale Jackson, John Dale Jackson, Jackson Jet Center, LLC, Jacksons Food Stores, Inc. and Waldon Wayne Werner answering brief due 06/10/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12358568] (RT) [Entered: 02/02/2022 11:16 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.
