Anh Thai, et al v. County of Los Angeles, et al
| MOHAMMAD NASSIRI, DIEP THI NGUYEN, ANH VAN THAI, DUC HUYNH, TRAI CHAU, LANH NGUYEN, HOI CUU QUAN NHAN VIET NAM CONG HOA and THO VAN HA |
| NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Social Security, ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MARY HAGAR, Supervisor, NICHOLAS PILCHER, SSA Agent, SUNDEEP PATEL, SSA-Agent and DUKE TRAN |
| ANH TUYET THAI, DON DOAN and TOMMY NGUYEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated |
| COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WILLIAM VILLASENOR, DULCE SANCHEZ and STATE AND/OR LOCAL AGENTS LADA |
| 22-55368 |
| April 8, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 26, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Filed order (JAY S. BYBEE, ANDREW D. HURWITZ and RYAN D. NELSON) This appeal is taken from the district courts April 5, 2022 order denying reconsideration of its October 14, 2021 order denying class action certification. Because an order denying class certification is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1291, see Bates v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 848 F.3d 1236, 1238 (9th Cir. 2017), appellants were ordered to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See also Branson v. City of Los Angeles, 912 F.2d 334, 336 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting that an order denying reconsideration of a non-appealable order is itself not appealable). In lieu of responding to the order to show cause, appellants filed in the appeal a petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) for permission to appeal the district courts orders denying class certification and denying reconsideration (Docket Entry No. [ # 5 ]). The court, in its discretion, denies the petition for permission to appeal the challenged orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f); Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 402 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating standard). The underlying appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Bates, 848 F.3d at 1238; Branson, 912 F.2d at 336. DISMISSED. [12457768] (JBS) [Entered: 05/26/2022 04:09 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed (ECF) Appellants Don Doan and Anh Tuyet Thai response to order to show cause dated 04/12/2022. Date of service: 04/19/2022. [12426064] [22-55368] --[COURT UPDATE: Updated docket text to reflect correct ECF filing type. 4/20/2022 by TYL] (Manbeck, Alexandra) [Entered: 04/19/2022 11:37 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: LCC): A review of the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the order challenged in the appeal may not be final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981) (noting that an order is not appealable under 1291 unless it disposes of all claims as to all parties or judgment is entered in compliance with Rule 54(b)); see also Bates v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 848 F.3d 1236, 1238-39 (9th Cir. 2017) (observing that an order denying class certification is not immediately appealable as a final judgment and dismissing appeal for lack of jurisdiction where appellants did not comply with applicable procedures to obtain immediate review); Plata v. Davis, 329 F.3d 1101, 1106-08 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissing appeal of class certification order for lack of jurisdiction where appellants failed to request permission to file an interlocutory appeal); Branson v. City of Los Angeles, 912 F.2d 334, 336 (9th Cir. 1990) (noting that an order denying reconsideration of a non-appealable order is itself not appealable). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellants shall either move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellants elect to show cause, a response may be filed within 10 days after service of the memorandum. If appellants do 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. [12419339] (JBS) [Entered: 04/12/2022 04:55 PM] |
| Filing 3 The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 04/08/2022. 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.[12416681]. [22-55368] (AD) [Entered: 04/09/2022 06:44 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed (ECF) Appellants Anh Tuyet Thai, Don Doan and Tommy Nguyen Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 04/08/2022. [12416677] [22-55368] (Manbeck, Alexandra) [Entered: 04/08/2022 10:33 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Appellants Don Doan, Tommy Nguyen and Anh Tuyet Thai Mediation Questionnaire due on 04/15/2022. Appellants Don Doan, Tommy Nguyen and Anh Tuyet Thai opening brief due 06/08/2022. Appellees County of Los Angeles, Dulce Sanchez, State And/Or Local Agents LADA and William Villasenor answering brief due 07/08/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12416582] (RT) [Entered: 04/08/2022 04:38 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.
