Jacqueline Smith, et al v. Bath & Body Works, Inc., et al
| SHADI HAYDEN, JERRY HO, CHRISTINE ALIRE, CAROL JULIAN-MOYE, ERIC GILBERT, TRACI DUNCAN WHITE, MAYCE AL KURAISHI, SOWBHAGIA NAIDU and STEPHANIE CHAPA |
| THE RETAIL EQUATION, INC., SEPHORA USA, INC., BED, BATH & BEYOND INC., THE GAP, INC., HOME DEPOT, INC., THE TJX COMPANIES, INC. and CVS PHARMACY, INC. |
| JACQUELINE SMITH and ALEXANDRA SOLORZANO |
| BATH & BODY WORKS, INC., FKA L Brands, Inc. |
| 22-55957 |
| October 17, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Consumer Credit |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 15, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Filed order (Deputy Clerk: LCC) Appellants motion for voluntary dismissal of this appeal (Docket Entry No. [ # 5 ]) is granted. This appeal is dismissed. See Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). This order served on the district court shall act as and for the mandate of this court. [12611942] (OC) [Entered: 12/15/2022 04:38 PM] |
| Filing 5 Filed (ECF) Appellants Jacqueline Smith and Alexandra Solorzano Motion to dismiss case voluntarily pursuant to FRAP 42(b). Date of service: 12/09/2022. [12607324] [22-55957] (Stiner, Christopher) [Entered: 12/09/2022 04:09 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. [12591854] (OC) [Entered: 11/18/2022 04:41 PM] |
| Filing 3 The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 10/24/2022. 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.[12572024]. [22-55957] (AD) [Entered: 10/24/2022 06:44 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed (ECF) Appellants Jacqueline Smith and Alexandra Solorzano Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 10/24/2022. [12571881] [22-55957] (Stiner, Christopher) [Entered: 10/24/2022 04:12 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Appellants Jacqueline Smith and Alexandra Solorzano Mediation Questionnaire due on 10/24/2022. Transcript ordered by 11/14/2022. Transcript due 12/12/2022. Appellants Jacqueline Smith and Alexandra Solorzano opening brief due 01/23/2023. Appellee Bath & Body Works, Inc. answering brief due 02/22/2023. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12564829] (JBS) [Entered: 10/17/2022 11:33 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.
