Morgan, et al. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, et al.

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit Morgan, et al. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, et al.

Morgan, et al. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, et al.

Plaintiff / Appellee:	NATHANIEL MORGAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated and MICHAEL BEVAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
Defendant / Appellant:	HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION, doing business as UTC Aerospace Systems doing business as Collins Aerospace, ROHR INC, UNITED TECHNOLOGY TRADE CORP. and DOES 1-50, inclusive
Case Number:	23-4236
Filed:	December 18, 2023
Court:	U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit:	Other

RSS Track this Docket

Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on December 18, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed	Document Text
December 18, 2023	Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Mediation Questionnaire due (Appellant) due 12/26/2023, Appeal Transcript Order Due (Appellant) due 12/29/2023, Appeal Transcript Due (Appellant) due 1/29/2024, Appeal Opening Brief Due (Appellant) due 3/8/2024, Appeal Answering Brief Due (Appellee) due 4/8/2024. All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. [Entered: 12/18/2023 04:07 PM]
December 18, 2023	Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 3:20-cv-00574-GPC-AHG has been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 23-4236 has been assigned to this case. All communications with the court must indicate this Court of Appeals docket number. Please carefully review the docket to ensure the name(s) and contact information are correct. It is your responsibility to alert the court if your contact information changes. Resources Available For more information about case processing and to assist you in preparing your brief, please review the Case Opening Information (for #attorneys and #pro se litigants) and review the #Appellate Practice Guide. Counsel should consider contacting the court's #Appellate Mentoring Program for help with the brief and argument. [Entered: 12/18/2023 04:02 PM]

Date Filed

Document Text

December 18, 2023

Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Mediation Questionnaire due (Appellant) due 12/26/2023, Appeal Transcript Order Due (Appellant) due 12/29/2023, Appeal Transcript Due (Appellant) due 1/29/2024, Appeal Opening Brief Due (Appellant) due 3/8/2024, Appeal Answering Brief Due (Appellee) due 4/8/2024. All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. [Entered: 12/18/2023 04:07 PM]

December 18, 2023

Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 3:20-cv-00574-GPC-AHG has been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 23-4236 has been assigned to this case. All communications with the court must indicate this Court of Appeals docket number. Please carefully review the docket to ensure the name(s) and contact information are correct. It is your responsibility to alert the court if your contact information changes. Resources Available For more information about case processing and to assist you in preparing your brief, please review the Case Opening Information (for #attorneys and #pro se litigants) and review the #Appellate Practice Guide. Counsel should consider contacting the court's #Appellate Mentoring Program for help with the brief and argument. [Entered: 12/18/2023 04:02 PM]

Access additional case information on PACER

Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Search for this case: Morgan, et al. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, 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: NATHANIEL MORGAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
Represented By:	Mr. Scott A. Brooks
Represented By:	Mr. Matthew Warren Gordon
Represented By:	Dalia Khalili
Represented By:	Mr. Matthew J. Matern
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	[ Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff / appellee: MICHAEL BEVAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
Represented By:	Mr. Scott A. Brooks
Represented By:	Mr. Matthew Warren Gordon
Represented By:	Dalia Khalili
Represented By:	Mr. Matthew J. Matern
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	[ Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant / appellant: HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION, doing business as UTC Aerospace Systems doing business as Collins Aerospace
Represented By:	Jonathan L. Brophy
Represented By:	Romtin Parvaresh
Represented By:	Mr. Timothy M. Rusche
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	[ Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant / appellant: ROHR INC
Represented By:	Jonathan L. Brophy
Represented By:	Romtin Parvaresh
Represented By:	Mr. Timothy M. Rusche
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	[ Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant / appellant: UNITED TECHNOLOGY TRADE CORP.
Represented By:	Jonathan L. Brophy
Represented By:	Romtin Parvaresh
Represented By:	Mr. Timothy M. Rusche
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	[ Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant / appellant: DOES 1-50, inclusive
Represented By:	Jonathan L. Brophy
Represented By:	Mr. Timothy M. Rusche
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	[ 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?