Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg, et al.
Plaintiff: JEFFREY B. SEDLIK, an individual
Defendant: KATHERINE VON DRACHENBERG, an individual; AKA Kat Von D, KAT VON D, INC., a California corporation and HIGH VOLTAGE TATOO, INC., a California corporation
Case Number: 24-3367
Filed: May 29, 2024
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nature of Suit: Other
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on May 29, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
May 29, 2024 Filing 3 STATUS REPORT filed by Appellant Jeffrey B. Sedlik. [Entered: 05/29/2024 04:44 PM]
May 29, 2024 Filing 2 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 2:21-cv-01102-DSF-MRW 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 24-3367 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: 05/29/2024 01:17 PM]
May 29, 2024 Filing 1 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Mediation Questionnaire due (Appellant) 6/3/2024, Appeal Transcript Order Due (Appellant) 6/7/2024, Appeal Transcript Due (Appellant) 7/8/2024, Appeal Opening Brief Due (Appellant) 8/14/2024, Appeal Answering Brief Due (Appellee) 9/16/2024. For appeal no. 24-3367, 2:21-cv-01102-DSF-MRW. 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: 05/29/2024 12:54 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: Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg, 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: JEFFREY B. SEDLIK, an individual
Represented By: Mr. Robert Edward Allen
Represented By: Lara Alexandra Petersen
Represented By: Jason Linger
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: KATHERINE VON DRACHENBERG, an individual; AKA Kat Von D
Represented By: Allen B. Grodsky
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: KAT VON D, INC., a California corporation
Represented By: Allen B. Grodsky
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: HIGH VOLTAGE TATOO, INC., a California corporation
Represented By: Allen B. Grodsky
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.


Why Is My Information Online?