Andrew Watters v. Mahsa Parviz
| ANDREW G. WATTERS |
| MAHSA PARVIZ |
| 23-35601 |
| September 18, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Fraud |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 18, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND PRO SE APPELLEE. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Andrew G. Watters opening brief due 11/20/2023. Appellee Mahsa Parviz answering brief due 12/20/2023. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12794131] (RT) [Entered: 09/18/2023 02:01 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.
| Search for this case: Andrew Watters v. Mahsa Parviz | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff / appellant: ANDREW G. WATTERS | |
| Represented By: | Andrew G. Watters |
| 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 / appellee: MAHSA PARVIZ | |
| Represented By: | Mahsa Parviz |
| 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.
