Amy Sherlock, et al v. Gina Austin, et al
ANDREW FLORES, an individual |
AMY SHERLOCK, on her own behalf and on behalf of her minor children, T.S. and S.S |
GINA M. AUSTIN, an individual, AUSTIN LEGAL GROUP APC, a California Corporation, JOEL R. WOHLFEIL, an individual, LAWRENCE GERACI, an individual, AKA Larry, TAX & FINANCIAL CENTER, INC., a California Corporation, REBECCA BERRY, an individual, JESSICA CLAIRE MCELFRESH, an individual, SALAM RAZUKI, an individual, NINNUS MALAN, an individual, MICHAEL ROBERT WEINSTEIN, an individual, SCOTT TOOTHACRE, an individual, ELYSSA KULAS, an individual, FERRIS & BRITTON APC, a California Corporation, DAVID S. DEMIAN, an individual, ADAM C. WITT, an individual, RISHI S. BHATT, an individual, FINCH, THORTON, AND BAIRD, a Limited Liability Partnership, JAMES D. CROSBY, an individual, ABHAY SCHWEITZER, an individual, DBA Techne, JAMES BARTELL, an individual, AKA Jim, BARTELL & ASSOCIATES, a California Corporation, NATALIE TRANGMY NGUYEN, an individual, AARON MAGAGNA, an individual, A-M INDUSTRIES, INC., a California Corporation, BRADFORD HARCOURT, an individual, ALAN CLAYBON, an individual, CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a municipality, 2018FMO, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, FIROUZEH TIRANDAZI, an individual, MICHAEL TRAVIS PHELPS, an individual, DOUGLAS A. PETTIT, an individual, JULIA DALZELL, an individual and DOES, 3 through 50, inclusive |
23-55018 |
January 10, 2023 |
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
Other Civil Rights |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
Description |
---|
AMY SHERLOCK, ET AL V. GINA AUSTIN, ET AL |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on March 6, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 8 Streamlined request [7] by Appellant Amy Sherlock to extend time to file the brief is approved. Streamline requests allow for 30 day extensions. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant Amy Sherlock opening brief due 04/05/2023. Appellees 2018FMO, LLC, A-M Industries, Inc., Gina M. Austin, Austin Legal Group APC, James Bartell, Bartell & Associates, Rebecca Berry, Rishi S. Bhatt, City of San Diego, Alan Claybon, James D. Crosby, Julia Dalzell, David S. Demian, Does, Ferris & Britton APC, Finch, Thorton, and Baird, Lawrence Geraci, Bradford Harcourt, Elyssa Kulas, Aaron Magagna, Ninnus Malan, Jessica Claire McElfresh, Natalie Trangmy Nguyen, Douglas A. Pettit, Michael Travis Phelps, Salam Razuki, Abhay Schweitzer, Tax & Financial Center, Inc., Firouzeh Tirandazi, Scott Toothacre, Michael Robert Weinstein, Adam C. Witt and Joel R. Wohlfeil answering brief due 05/05/2023. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [12668265] (DLM) [Entered: 03/06/2023 03:45 PM] |
Filing 7 Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Opening Brief by Appellant Amy Sherlock. New requested due date is 04/03/2023. [12668031] [23-55018] (Flores, Andrew) [Entered: 03/06/2023 02:14 PM] |
Filing 6 MEDIATION ORDER FILED: This case is RELEASED from the Mediation Program. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant settlement discussions while the appeal is pending. [12650366] (CL) [Entered: 02/09/2023 06:38 PM] |
Filing 5 MEDIATION ORDER FILED: By 02/09/2023, counsel to email Circuit Mediator regarding settlement potential. Include Ninth Circuit case name and number in subject line. This communication will be kept confidential, if requested, and should not be filed with the court. The existing briefing schedule remains in effect. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. [12639740] (CL) [Entered: 01/26/2023 02:01 PM] |
Filing 4 The Mediation Questionnaire for this case was filed on 01/24/2023. 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.[12637241]. [23-55018] (AD) [Entered: 01/24/2023 01:00 PM] |
Filing 3 Filed (ECF) Appellant Amy Sherlock Mediation Questionnaire. Date of service: 01/24/2023. [12637019] [23-55018] (Flores, Andrew) [Entered: 01/24/2023 11:02 AM] |
Filing 2 MEDIATION ORDER FILED: The court of appeals' records do not indicate that appellant has filed a mediation questionnaire in accordance with Cir. R. 3-4. Within seven (7) days of the filing date of this order, appellant shall file a Mediation Questionnaire or dismiss the appeal voluntarily. [12636561] (BLS) [Entered: 01/23/2023 05:03 PM] |
Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. SEND MQ: Yes. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Amy Sherlock Mediation Questionnaire due on 01/17/2023. Appellant Amy Sherlock opening brief due 03/06/2023. Appellees 2018FMO, LLC, A-M Industries, Inc., Gina M. Austin, Austin Legal Group APC, James Bartell, Bartell & Associates, Rebecca Berry, Rishi S. Bhatt, City of San Diego, Alan Claybon, James D. Crosby, Julia Dalzell, David S. Demian, Does, Ferris & Britton APC, Finch, Thorton, and Baird, Lawrence Geraci, Bradford Harcourt, Elyssa Kulas, Aaron Magagna, Ninnus Malan, Jessica Claire McElfresh, Natalie Trangmy Nguyen, Douglas A. Pettit, Michael Travis Phelps, Salam Razuki, Abhay Schweitzer, Tax & Financial Center, Inc., Firouzeh Tirandazi, Scott Toothacre, Michael Robert Weinstein, Adam C. Witt and Joel R. Wohlfeil answering brief due 04/05/2023. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12627494] (JBS) [Entered: 01/10/2023 02:46 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.