Cirrus Education, Inc., et al v. Christopher Adams, et al
Plaintiff / Appellee: CIRRUS EDUCATION, INC., a corporation, CIRRUS BEIJING CORP., a corporation, CIRRUS LTD. and IQ HUB PTE LTD., a corporation
Defendant / Appellant: CHRISTOPHER M. ADAMS, an individual, DAVID V. ADAMS, trustee of the Christopher Adams Trust, DVA, INC., a corporation and MORGAN ADAMS, INC., a corporation
Case Number: 22-55899
Filed: September 29, 2022
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander

Opinions

We have the following opinions for this case:

Date Filed Description
April 24, 2023 CIRRUS EDUCATION, INC., ET AL V. CHRISTOPHER ADAMS, ET AL

Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 29, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 29, 2022 Filing 3 Received notification from District Court re: payment of docket fee. Amount Paid: USD 505.00. Date paid: 09/29/2022. [12552906] (BY) [Entered: 09/29/2022 04:22 PM]
September 29, 2022 Filing 2 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Appellants Christopher M. Adams, David V. Adams, DVA, Inc. and Morgan Adams, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire due on 10/06/2022. Appellants Christopher M. Adams, David V. Adams, DVA, Inc. and Morgan Adams, Inc. opening brief due 11/30/2022. Appellees Cirrus Beijing Corp., Cirrus Education, Inc., Cirrus Ltd. and iQ Hub Pte Ltd. answering brief due 12/30/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12552380] (RT) [Entered: 09/29/2022 11:52 AM]
September 28, 2022 Filing 1 Filed order (KIM MCLANE WARDLAW and MARK J. BENNETT, Circuit Judges) in case no. 22-80050 on September 28, 2022: The petition for permission to appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) is granted. Within 14 days after the date of this order, petitioner shall perfect the appeal in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(d). [12552362]--[Edited: updated docket text to reflect content of filing. 09/29/2022 by SLM] (RT) [Entered: 09/29/2022 11:47 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: Cirrus Education, Inc., et al v. Christopher Adams, 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 / appellee: CIRRUS EDUCATION, INC., a corporation
Represented By: Kevin Askew
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 ]
Plaintiff / appellee: CIRRUS BEIJING CORP., a corporation
Represented By: Richard L. Gallagher
Represented By: Liana Mayilyan
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 ]
Plaintiff / appellee: CIRRUS LTD.
Represented By: Kevin Askew
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 ]
Plaintiff / appellee: IQ HUB PTE LTD., a corporation
Represented By: Kevin Askew
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 / appellant: CHRISTOPHER M. ADAMS, an individual
Represented By: Robert Craig Baker Esquire
Represented By: Nicholas Anthony Dellefave
Represented By: Laurence C. Osborn Esquire
Represented By: David A. Robinson Esquire
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 / appellant: DAVID V. ADAMS, trustee of the Christopher Adams Trust
Represented By: Laurence C. Osborn Esquire
Represented By: Robert Craig Baker Esquire
Represented By: Nicholas Anthony Dellefave
Represented By: David A. Robinson Esquire
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 / appellant: DVA, INC., a corporation
Represented By: Robert Craig Baker Esquire
Represented By: Nicholas Anthony Dellefave
Represented By: Laurence C. Osborn Esquire
Represented By: David A. Robinson Esquire
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 / appellant: MORGAN ADAMS, INC., a corporation
Represented By: Robert Craig Baker Esquire
Represented By: Nicholas Anthony Dellefave
Represented By: Laurence C. Osborn Esquire
Represented By: David A. Robinson Esquire
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.


Why Is My Information Online?