Austin v. Kia Corporation, et al.
| GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN |
| MAXINE M. CHESNEY, DISTRICT JUDGE, SUSAN ILLSTON, DISTRICT JUDGE, EPIQ GLOBAL, SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG, CHARLES R. BREYER, DISTRICT JUDGE, YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, DISTRICT JUDGE, KIA CORPORATION, JAMES DONATO, DISTRICT JUDGE, TRINA L. THOMPSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, RICHARD SEEBORG, CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE, DONNA M. RYU, MAGISTRATE JUDGE, EDWARD M. CHEN, DISTRICT JUDGE, WILLIAM H. ALSUP, RITA F. LIN, DISTRICT JUDGE, ALEX G. TSE, MAGISTRATE JUDGE, EDWARD J. DAVILLA and WILLIAM HORSLEY ORRICK, DISTRICT JUDGE |
| 25-26 |
| January 2, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 13, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 16 MANDATE ISSUED Richard A. PAEZ, Jay S. BYBEE, Eric D. MILLER [Entered: 02/13/2025 10:59 AM] |
| Filing 15 SUPPLEMENT to Motion to Clarify or Amend Court Order or Disposition (DE 4) filed by Appellant George Jarvis Austin. [Entered: 01/27/2025 05:16 PM] |
| Filing 14 SUPPLEMENT to Motion to Clarify or Amend Court Order or Disposition (DE 4) filed by Appellant George Jarvis Austin. [Entered: 01/25/2025 07:38 PM] |
| Filing 13 Miscellaneous Pro Se Filings Filed [Court entered filing from DE#12 -NAN per 1/22/2025 Order] [Entered: 01/23/2025 10:23 AM] |
| Filing 12 DEFECTIVE--SUPPLEMENT to Motion to Clarify or Amend Court Order or Disposition (DE 4) filed by Appellant George Jarvis Austin.[Filed under wrong event. Correct entry #13] [Entered: 01/22/2025 08:11 PM] [Edited: 01/23/2025 10:35 AM] |
| Filing 11 Miscellaneous Pro Se Filings Filed [ Court enterd filing from DE#10-NAN per 1/22/2025 Order] [Entered: 01/22/2025 04:29 PM] |
| Filing 10 DEFECTIVE---STATUS REPORT filed by Appellant George Jarvis Austin.[Filed under wrong event. Correct entry#11] [Entered: 01/22/2025 03:01 PM] [Edited: 01/22/2025 04:30 PM] |
Filing 9
ORDER FILED. (Richard A. PAEZ, Jay S. BYBEE, Eric D. MILLER) A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the order challenged in the appeal is not final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are denied as moot. No further filings will be entertained in this appeal No. 25-26. DISMISSED. [Entered: 01/22/2025 01:48 PM]
|
| Filing 8 MEDIATION QUESTIONNAIRE filed by Appellant George Jarvis Austin. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please email #ca09_mediation@ca9.uscourts.gov and include the case name and number in the subject line. 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. [Entered: 01/04/2025 01:10 PM] |
|
Filing 7
ORDER FILED. Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Brief (DE 3) denied as unnecessary. It is unnecessary. The briefing schedule is stayed. Briefing shall be reset as necessary pending resolution of the motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis (DE5). [Entered: 01/03/2025 02:21 PM]
|
| Filing 6 MEDIATION QUESTIONNAIRE filed by Appellant George Jarvis Austin. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please email #ca09_mediation@ca9.uscourts.gov and include the case name and number in the subject line. 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. [Entered: 01/03/2025 06:30 AM] |
| Filing 5 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis filed by Appellant George Jarvis Austin. [Entered: 01/03/2025 06:22 AM] |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Clarify or Amend Court Order or Disposition filed by Appellant George Jarvis Austin. [Entered: 01/03/2025 06:17 AM] |
| Filing 3 Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Brief filed by Appellant George Jarvis Austin. [Entered: 01/02/2025 09:54 PM] |
| Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Appeal Opening Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellant) 2/11/2025, Appeal Answering Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellee) 3/13/2025. For appeal no. 25-26, 3:24-cv-04188-AMO. 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: 01/02/2025 05:03 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 3:24-cv-04188-AMO 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 25-26 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: 01/02/2025 04:59 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.
