Harvey, et al. v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC
| BRANDON HARVEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated |
| MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC |
| MATTHEW LUCADANO, Proposed Intervenor and TRACY CHEN, Proposed Intervenor |
| 25-288 |
| January 15, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 14, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 9
ORDER FILED. The motion (Docket Entry No. 8) for voluntary dismissal is granted. See Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). This case is dismissed. This order serves as the mandate of the court. [Entered: 02/14/2025 09:04 AM]
|
| Filing 8 MOTION to Voluntarily Dismiss filed by Appellant Matthew Lucadano, Appellant Tracy Chen. [Entered: 02/13/2025 11:49 AM] |
| Filing 7 RELEASED FROM MEDIATION (text only). This case is released from the Mediation Program. The briefing schedule previously set by the court remains in effect. [Entered: 02/06/2025 05:25 PM] |
| Filing 6 ADDED Counsel for Appellee Michael Rubin [Entered: 02/04/2025 03:06 PM] |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Michael Rubin for Appellee Brandon Harvey. [Entered: 02/04/2025 03:02 PM] |
| Filing 4 MEDIATION ORDER: By 2/5/2025, counsel to email Circuit Mediator regarding settlement potential. Include Ninth Circuit case name and number in subject line. This communication will be kept confidential, if requested, and should not be filed with the court. The existing briefing schedule remains in effect. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. [Entered: 01/27/2025 01:12 PM] |
| Filing 3 MEDIATION QUESTIONNAIRE filed by Appellant Matthew Lucadano, Appellant Tracy Chen. To submit pertinent confidential information directly to the Circuit Mediators, please email #[email protected] 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: 01/21/2025 04:55 PM] |
| Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Mediation Questionnaire due (Appellant) 1/21/2025, Appeal Transcript Order Due (Appellant) 1/23/2025, Appeal Transcript Due (Appellant) 2/24/2025, Appeal Opening Brief Due (Appellant) 4/4/2025, Appeal Answering Brief Due (Appellee) 5/5/2025. For appeal no. 25-288, 3:18-cv-02835-WHO. 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: 01/16/2025 09:46 AM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 3:18-cv-02835-WHO 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 25-288 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: 01/15/2025 05:31 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.
