Marcelino Ocegueda, Jr. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al
DOES, 1 through 10, inclusive |
MARCELINO OCEGUEDA, Jr. |
BEVERLY MILLIKEN |
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY |
MARCELINO OCEGUEDA, Sr., LETICIA OCEGUEDA and ADRIANA OCEGUEDA |
22-55499 |
May 19, 2022 |
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
Other Personal Property Damage |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on June 16, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 4 MANDATE ISSUED. (JSB, ADH and RDN) [12472581] (NAC) [Entered: 06/16/2022 07:38 AM] |
Filing 3 Filed order (JAY S. BYBEE, ANDREW D. HURWITZ and RYAN D. NELSON) : A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the May 16, 2022 notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days after the district court's judgment entered on December 17, 2008. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED. [12455975] (RT) [Entered: 05/25/2022 10:50 AM] |
Filing 2 Received copy of District Court order filed on 05/19/2022. The court has considered the motion and the motion is DENIED [12453793] (NAC) [Entered: 05/23/2022 12:38 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 06/21/2022. Transcript due 07/20/2022. Appellant Marcelino Ocegueda Jr. opening brief due 08/24/2022. Appellee Union Pacific Railroad Company answering brief due 09/26/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12451242] (RT) [Entered: 05/19/2022 11:10 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.