LA Alliance for Human Rights, et al v. City of Los Angeles, et al
| LA ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, an unincorporated association, JOSEPH BURK, HARRY TASHDJIAN, KARYN PINSKY, CHARLES MALOW, CHARLES VAN SCOY, GEORGE FREM, GARY WHITTER and LEANDRO SUAREZ |
| LOS ANGELES CATHOLIC WORKER, CANGRESS, DBA Los Angeles Community Action Network, LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK and ORANGE COUNTY CATHOLIC WORKER |
| CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal entity, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal entity and DOES, 1 through 200 inclusive |
| 22-55687 |
| July 18, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 22, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Filed (ECF) Appellee City of Los Angeles reply to response to Court order dated 07/21/2022. Date of service: 08/22/2022. [12523215] [22-55687] --[COURT UPDATE: Updated docket text to reflect correct ECF filing type. 08/24/2022 by TYL] (Walsh, Michael) [Entered: 08/22/2022 04:17 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed (ECF) Appellants Cangress and Los Angeles Catholic Worker reply to response to Court order dated 07/21/2022. Date of service: 08/11/2022. [12515531] [22-55687] (Myers, Shayla) [Entered: 08/11/2022 11:39 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); Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy Ctr., LLC, 548 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008) (A district court order is . . . not appealable [under 1291] unless it disposes of all claims as to all parties or unless judgment is entered in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). (citing Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981))). 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. [12499565] (RT) [Entered: 07/21/2022 04:06 PM] |
| Filing 3 Added Attorney(s) Michael Martin Walsh for party(s) Appellee City of Los Angeles, in case 22-55687. [12497220] (NAC) [Entered: 07/19/2022 11:34 AM] |
| Filing 2 Filed (ECF) notice of appearance of Michael M. Walsh (Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, 200 No. Spring Street, 14th Floor, City Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90012) for Appellee City of Los Angeles. Date of service: 07/19/2022. (Party was previously proceeding with counsel.) [12497199] [22-55687] (Walsh, Michael) [Entered: 07/19/2022 11:22 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Appellants Cangress, Los Angeles Catholic Worker, Los Angeles Community Action Network and Orange County Catholic Worker Mediation Questionnaire due on 07/25/2022. Transcript ordered by 08/16/2022. Transcript due 09/15/2022. Appellants Cangress, Los Angeles Catholic Worker, Los Angeles Community Action Network and Orange County Catholic Worker opening brief due 10/24/2022. Appellees Joseph Burk, City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, Does, George Frem, LA Alliance for Human Rights, Charles Malow, Karyn Pinsky, Leandro Suarez, Harry Tashdjian, Charles Van Scoy and Gary Whitter answering brief due 11/25/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12496632] (RT) [Entered: 07/18/2022 04:43 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.
