Lawyers For Fair Reciprocal Admission v. United States of America, et al.
| LAWYERS FOR FAIR RECIPROCAL ADMISSION |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL, MARY H. MURGUIA, CHIEF CIRCUIT JUDGE, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, CIRCUIT JUDGE, MORGAN B. CHRISTEN, CIRCUIT JUDGE, SANDRA S. IKUTA, CIRCUIT JUDGE, MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND, CIRCUIT JUDGE, ERIC D. MILLER, CIRCUIT JUDGE, BRIAN M. MORRIS, DISTRICT JUDGE, MIRANDA M. DU, DISTRICT JUDGE, PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON, DISTRICT JUDGE, RONALD S.W. LEW, SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE, G. MURRAY SNOW, DISTRICT JUDGE, SUSAN M. BRNOVICH, DISTRICT JUDGE, DIANE J. HUMETEWA, DISTRICT JUDGE, DOMINIC LANZA, DISTRICT JUDGE, MICHAEL T. LIBURDI, DISTRICT JUDGE, STEVEN PAUL LOGAN, DISTRICT JUDGE, DOUGLAS L. RAYES, DISTRICT JUDGE, JOHN JOSEPH TUCHI, DISTRICT JUDGE, JOHN CHARLES HINDERAKER, DISTRICT JUDGE, ROSEMARY M RQUEZ, DISTRICT JUDGE, SCOTT H. RASH, DISTRICT JUDGE, JAMES ALAN SOTO, DISTRICT JUDGE, JENNIFER G. ZIPPS, DISTRICT JUDGE, PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ, DISTRICT JUDGE, FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA, DISTRICT JUDGE, PERCY ANDERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, ANDR BIROTTE, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE, STANLEY BLUMENFELD, JR., DISTRICT JUDGE, MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, DISTRICT JUDGE, MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG, DISTRICT JUDGE, SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT, DISTRICT JUDGE, DOLLY M. GEE, DISTRICT JUDGE, JOHN W. HOLCOMB, DISTRICT JUDGE, R. GARY KLAUSNER, DISTRICT JUDGE, JOHN A. KRONSTADT, DISTRICT JUDGE, FERNANDO M. OLGUIN, DISTRICT JUDGE, VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, DISTRICT JUDGE, MARK C. SCARSI, DISTRICT JUDGE, JOSEPHINE L. STATON, DISTRICT JUDGE, JOHN F. WALTER, DISTRICT JUDGE, STEPHEN V. WILSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, DISTRICT JUDGE, GEORGE H. WU, DISTRICT JUDGE, MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, DISTRICT JUDGE, ANN L. AIKEN, DISTRICT JUDGE, DAVID G. ESTUDILLO, DISTRICT JUDGE, STANLEY ALLEN BASTIAN, DISTRICT JUDGE, SHARON L. GLEASON, CHIEF DISTRICT COURT, DERRICK KAHALA WATSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE, DAVID C. NYE, DISTRICT JUDGE, STEPHEN W KENYON, RICHARD G. SEEBORG, DISTRICT JUDGE, DANA M. SABRAW, DISTRICT JUDGE and KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, DISTRICT JUDGE |
| 24-2213 |
| April 9, 2024 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 9, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Mediation Questionnaire due (Appellant) 4/15/2024, Appeal Opening Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellant) 5/20/2024, Appeal Answering Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellee) 6/20/2024. 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: 04/09/2024 03:12 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 2:22-cv-01221-MWM 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 24-2213 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: 04/09/2024 03:10 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.
