Dalavai v. Regents of the University of California, et al.
| RANDAL JEROME DALAVAI |
| REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES OF RANCHO SPRINGS, INC., DBA: Inland Valley Medical Center; DBA: Southwest Healthcare System, DANIEL CALAC, Dr. , M.D. an individual, LAURENCE H. BOGGELN, Dr, M.D., an individual, DONNA LOZA, official capacity, DEO BESANA, official capacity, KAREN YVONNE DALAVAI, nominal defendant, JANE SHERIL DALAVAI, nominal defendant and EMIL JASON DALAVAI, nominal defendant |
| 25-2109 |
| April 1, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
| Description |
|---|
| DALAVAI V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.San Diego, Southern CaliforniaCivilWardlaw, Kim McLane, Bade, Bridget S., Johnstone, Anthony D. |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 2, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 21
ORDER FILED. Sidney R. THOMAS, Mark J. BENNETT On June 13, 2025, the district court entered a final judgment. The June 6, 2025 order to show cause in appeal No. 25-2109 is therefore discharged. Appeal No. 25-2109 proceeds as an appeal from the January 29, 2025 dismissal order. See Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. City of Adelanto, 87 F.3d 334, 336 (9th Cir. 1996) (premature appeal from district courts dismissal order cured by dismissal of remaining parties); see also Anderson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 630 F.2d 677, 680-81 (9th Cir. 1980). The entry of a final judgment renders moot the portion of appeal No. 25-2109 that challenged the district courts denial of preliminary injunctive relief. See SEC v. Mount Vernon Meml Park, 664 F.2d 1358, 1361 (9th Cir. 1982) (when district court enters final judgment, appeal from preliminary injunction becomes moot). The court consolidates Appeal Nos. 25-2109, 25-3495, and 25-3830. The consolidated opening brief is due September 30, 2025. The consolidated answering brief is due October 30, 2025. The optional consolidated reply brief is due 21 days after the consolidated answering brief is served. The court prefers joint briefs where possible. See Circuit Advisory Committee Note to Ninth Circuit Rule 32-2. [25-2109, 25-3495, 25-3830] [Entered: 09/02/2025 10:29 AM]
|
| Filing 20 ADDED Counsel for Appellee Truman Braslaw [Entered: 08/27/2025 09:24 AM] |
| Filing 19 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Truman Braslaw for Appellee Deo Besana, Appellee Donna Loza. [Entered: 08/27/2025 09:19 AM] |
| Filing 18 REPLY to Response to Court Order (DE 14) filed by Appellee Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.. [COURT ENTERED FILING to correct DE 17.] [Entered: 06/23/2025 09:08 AM] |
| Filing 17 DEFECTIVE---RESPONSE to Order - General OSC (DE 12) filed by Appellee Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.. [Wrong filing type used, correct entry is DE 18.] [Entered: 06/20/2025 04:37 PM] [Edited: 06/23/2025 09:08 AM] |
| Filing 16 REPLY to Response to Court Order (DE 14) filed by Appellee Regents of the University of California. [Entered: 06/20/2025 03:59 PM] |
| Filing 15 REPLY to Response to Court Order (DE 14) filed by Appellee Daniel Calac, Appellee Laurence H. Boggeln. [Entered: 06/20/2025 03:01 PM] |
| Filing 14 RESPONSE to Order - General OSC (DE 12) filed by Appellant Randal Jerome Dalavai. [Entered: 06/09/2025 05:05 PM] |
|
Filing 13
ORDER FILED. Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Brief (DE 11) denied. It is unnecessary. The briefing schedule is stayed. [Entered: 06/09/2025 01:35 PM]
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER FILED. This appeal filed February 28, 2025 challenges the district courts January 29, 2025 interlocutory order dismissing Counts 1-4 and 6-14 and dismissing appellants motion for a preliminary injunction. The only remaining claim pending in the district court is Count 5 against defendants Loza and Besana. On March 5, 2025, the district court entered a final judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) as to defendants Calac and Boggeln. Appellants April 4, 2025 appeal from the Rule 54(b) judgment is proceeding in this court as appeal No. 25-3495. A district courts dismissal order is not final or immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. 1291 unless it disposes of all claims as to all parties or unless judgment is entered in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy Ctr., LLC, 548 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing Chacon v. Babcock, 640 F.2d 221, 222 (9th Cir. 1981)); see also 28 U.S.C. 1291; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Frank Briscoe Co., Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc., 776 F.2d 1414, 1416 (9th Cir. 1985) (order disposing of fewer than all claims or parties is not appealable absent express determination from district court that there is no just reason for delay under Rule 54(b)). Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellant must show cause why the scope of this appeal No. 25-2109 should not be limited to a review of the dismissal of appellants motion for a preliminary injunction. Appellees may file a reply within 10 days after service of appellants response. Briefing is stayed pending further order of the court. [Entered: 06/06/2025 11:48 AM]
|
| Filing 11 Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Brief filed by Appellant Randal Jerome Dalavai. [Entered: 06/02/2025 11:15 AM] |
| Filing 10 MAIL RETURNED. DE 2 addressed to Counsel Lauren Hardisty. Action taken: none (counsel is registered for electronic filing). [Entered: 04/14/2025 03:47 PM] |
| Filing 9 MOTION to Reset Briefing Schedule filed by Appellant Randal Jerome Dalavai. [Entered: 04/10/2025 05:00 PM] |
| Filing 8 ADDED Counsel for Appellee Jeffry A. Miller [Entered: 04/09/2025 03:46 PM] |
| Filing 7 ADDED Counsel for Appellee Corinne Bertsche [Entered: 04/09/2025 03:44 PM] |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Jeffry A. Miller for Appellee Daniel Calac, Appellee Laurence H. Boggeln. [Entered: 04/09/2025 03:37 PM] |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Corinne Bertsche for Appellee Daniel Calac, Appellee Laurence H. Boggeln. [Entered: 04/09/2025 03:17 PM] |
| Filing 4 ADDED Counsel for Appellee Cassidy C. Davenport [Entered: 04/04/2025 08:05 AM] |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Cassidy C. Davenport for Appellee Regents of the University of California. [Entered: 04/03/2025 05:31 PM] |
| Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Appeal Transcript Order Due (Appellant) 4/8/2025, Appeal Transcript Due (Appellant) 5/8/2025, Appeal Opening Brief Due (Appellant) 6/12/2025, Appeal Answering Brief Due (Appellee) 7/14/2025. For appeal no. 25-2109, 3:22-cv-01471-CAB-DDL. 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: 04/01/2025 04:22 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 3:22-cv-01471-CAB-DDL 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 25-2109 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. Attorneys should consider contacting the court's #Appellate Mentoring Program for help with the brief and argument. [Entered: 04/01/2025 04:17 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.
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.
