Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. v. USDC-WAWSE
| CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A. |
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE |
| In re: CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., PAIGE A. THOMPSON, AKA erratic and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
| 22-70057 |
| March 28, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 28, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 Filed order (A. WALLACE TASHIMA, MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND and BRIDGET S. BADE): The district courts March 21, 2022 order challenged in this petition for a writ of mandamus is temporarily stayed pending resolution of the petition. We sua sponte continue disposition of this petition until Tuesday, April 5, 2022. See 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(3). This petition raises issues that warrant an answer. See Fed. R. App. P. 21(b). Real party in interest Paige A. Thompson shall file an answer no later than Wednesday March 30, 2022. Real party in interest the United States of America may also file an answer no later than Wednesday, March 30, 2022. The district court may also address the petition if it so desires. Petitioner may file a reply in support of the petition no later than 9:00 am Pacific Time on Friday, April 1, 2022. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order on the district court and District Judge Lasnik. [12406963] (HH) [Entered: 03/28/2022 07:42 PM] |
| Filing 1 FILED (EMERGENCY-CVRA) PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. NOTIFIED REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST OF FILING. [12406537] (BY) [Entered: 03/28/2022 03:01 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.
