Berroteran v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, et al.
| ABELARDO BERROTERAN |
| GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, FDBA Quirk & Tratos, PAUL ANDERSON, WESTERN GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS and MICROSOFT CORPORATION |
| 25-2916 |
| May 6, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 12, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 MANDATE ISSUED Barry G. SILVERMAN, Kenneth K. LEE, Lawrence VANDYKE [Entered: 08/12/2025 10:07 AM] |
Filing 11
ORDER FILED. SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. The motion (Docket Entry No. 4) to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction is granted. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional); see also Hollywood v. City of Santa Maria, 886 F.2d 1228, 1231 (9th Cir. 1989) (no separate judgment required for order denying post-judgment motion; time to appeal begins to run from entry of order denying post-judgment motion). DISMISSED. [Entered: 07/21/2025 01:41 PM]
|
| Filing 10 SUR-REPLY to Reply to Response to Motion to Dismiss (DE 9) filed by Appellant Abelardo Berroteran. [Entered: 07/16/2025 12:59 PM] |
| Filing 9 REPLY to Response to Motion to Dismiss (DE 8) filed by Appellee Microsoft Corporation. [Entered: 06/27/2025 11:09 AM] |
| Filing 8 RESPONSE to Motion to Dismiss (DE 4) filed by Appellant Abelardo Berroteran. [Entered: 06/23/2025 12:56 PM] |
|
Filing 7
ORDER FILED. Paper Streamlined Request for Extension of Time to File Brief (DE 6) denied as unnecessary. It is unnecessary. The briefing schedule is stayed. Briefing shall be reset as necessary pending resolution of the motion to dismiss (DE4). [Entered: 06/20/2025 04:57 PM]
|
| Filing 6 STREAMLINED request for extension of time to file brief for 30 days filed by Appellant Abelardo Berroteran. [Entered: 06/20/2025 04:42 PM] |
| Filing 5 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and CR 26.1-1 filed by Appellant Abelardo Berroteran. [Entered: 06/04/2025 02:03 PM] |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Appellee Microsoft Corporation. [Entered: 05/15/2025 01:46 PM] |
| Filing 3 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and CR 26.1-1 filed by Appellee Microsoft Corporation. [Entered: 05/15/2025 01:41 PM] |
| Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Appeal Opening Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellant) 6/16/2025, Appeal Answering Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellee) 7/15/2025. For appeal no. 25-2916, 2:21-cv-00396-RFB-EJY. 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: 05/06/2025 01:37 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 2:21-cv-00396-RFB-EJY 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 25-2916 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: 05/06/2025 01:32 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.
