Aderemi Atanda v. Norgren, et al
| TAMMY WESTBY, Accounts Manager, SAM THURNAW, Comptroller, TAMMY LAKE, Terminated Human Resource and EDNA BRANCH, Resigned Human Resource |
| ADEREMI EMMANUEL ATANDA |
| NORGREN, AKA IMI Precision Engineering |
| 23-35369 |
| May 30, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Jobs |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Aderemi Emmanuel Atanda letter dated 06/15/2023 re: Notice to request all documents. Paper filing deficiency: None. (Case opening documents at entry [ # 1 ] were resent to appellant on 06/16/2023.) [12739442] (QDL) [Entered: 06/20/2023 03:57 PM] |
| Filing 3 Received notice of change of address from Aderemi Emmanuel Atanda. New address: 1002 N. Meridian, Ste 100-190, Puyallup, WA 98371. [12739425] (QDL) [Entered: 06/20/2023 03:51 PM] |
| Filing 2 Mail returned on 06/12/2023 addressed to Aderemi Emmanuel Atanda, re: [ # 1 ] Case Opening Document. Returned envelope notes: return to sender, moved left no address, unable to forward. Resending to: 1002 N. Meridian, Ste 100-190, Puyallup, WA 98371. [12738012]--[Edited: address updated. 06/16/2023 by SLM] (LA) [Entered: 06/16/2023 01:57 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Aderemi Emmanuel Atanda opening brief due 07/31/2023. Appellee Norgren answering brief due 08/31/2023. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12724234] (RT) [Entered: 05/30/2023 10:37 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.
