Laura Swirski v. ProTec Association Services, et al
| LAURA SWIRSKI, an individual |
| PROTEC ASSOCIATION SERVICES, doing business as Protec Building Services, Inc., a California Corporation and DOES, 1 to 100, inclusive |
| 22-55047 |
| January 7, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Jobs |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 7, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 Filed order (Deputy Clerk: LCC) On January 11, 2022, this court ordered appellant, within 21 days, either 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. 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. [12362712] (WL) [Entered: 02/07/2022 01:31 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LCC): A review of the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days after the district courts judgment entered on December 6, 2021. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant shall either 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. [12337209] (WL) [Entered: 01/11/2022 10:29 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Laura Swirski Mediation Questionnaire due on 01/14/2022. Appellant Laura Swirski opening brief due 03/07/2022. Appellee ProTec Association Services answering brief due 04/06/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12334187] (HH) [Entered: 01/07/2022 10:39 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.
| Search for this case: Laura Swirski v. ProTec Association Services, et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff / appellant: LAURA SWIRSKI, an individual | |
| Represented By: | Kelly DuFord Williams |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellee: PROTEC ASSOCIATION SERVICES, doing business as Protec Building Services, Inc., a California Corporation | |
| Represented By: | David B. Monks |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellee: DOES, 1 to 100, inclusive | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
