Peter Kleidman v. RFF Family Partnership, LP, et al
| PETER KLEIDMAN |
| RFF FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LP and TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE, Chief Justice |
| 23-55610 |
| July 12, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 5, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Fee status changed ( [Case Number 23-55610: Paid] ). [12786221] (CKP) [Entered: 09/05/2023 10:28 AM] |
| Filing 4 Streamlined request [3] by Appellant Peter Kleidman to extend time to file the brief is approved. Amended briefing schedule: Appellant Peter Kleidman opening brief due 10/12/2023. Appellees Tani Cantil-Sakauye and RFF Family Partnership, LP answering brief due 11/13/2023. The optional reply brief is due 21 days from the date of service of the answering brief. [12756528] (DLM) [Entered: 07/17/2023 03:08 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed (ECF) Streamlined request for extension of time to file Opening Brief by Appellant Peter Kleidman. New requested due date is 10/12/2023. [12755912] [23-55610] (Kleidman, Peter) [Entered: 07/15/2023 08:28 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: MCD): Order to show cause docket fee due [12754395] (CKP) [Entered: 07/13/2023 09:58 AM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Peter Kleidman opening brief due 09/12/2023. Appellees Tani Cantil-Sakauye and RFF Family Partnership, LP answering brief due 10/12/2023. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12753607] (RT) [Entered: 07/12/2023 10:51 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.
