Penny Quinteros v. InnoGames, et al
| PENNY QUINTEROS |
| INNOGAMES, HENDRIK KLINDWORTH, MICHAEL ZILLMER, JULIE BLAN, AKA Jill and RICHARD STEPHENSON |
| 22-35333 |
| April 26, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Personal Injury |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| PENNY QUINTEROS V. INNOGAMES, ET AL |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 24, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 Streamlined request [2] by Appellant Ms. Penny Quinteros to extend time to file the brief is approved. Streamlined requests allow for a 30 day extension of time to file the brief. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant Penny Quinteros opening brief due 07/25/2022. Appellees Julie Blan, InnoGames, Hendrik Klindworth, Richard Stephenson and Michael Zillmer answering brief due 08/24/2022. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [12479565] (JN) [Entered: 06/24/2022 01:56 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Opening Brief by Appellant Ms. Penny Quinteros. New requested due date is 07/22/2022. [12479023] [22-35333] (Quinteros, Penny) [Entered: 06/24/2022 09:31 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Penny Quinteros opening brief due 06/24/2022. Appellees Julie Blan, InnoGames, Hendrik Klindworth, Richard Stephenson and Michael Zillmer answering brief due 07/25/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12431536] (JBS) [Entered: 04/26/2022 02:29 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.
