Hart, et al. v. City of Redwood City, et al.
| KRISTIN HART, individually and as co-successor-in-interest to Decedent KYLE HART, E. H., individually and as co-successor-in-interest to Decedent KYLE HART and W. H., individually and as co-successor-in-interest to Decedent KYLE HART |
| CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, a municipal corporation, DANIEL MULHOLLAND, individually and in his capacity as Chief of Police for the CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, ROMAN GOMEZ, individually and in his official capacity as a Police Officer for the CITY OF REDWOOD CITY and LEILA VELEZ, individually and in her official capacity as a Police Officer for the CITY OF REDWOOD CITY |
| 25-3771 |
| June 16, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 17, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 MANDATE ISSUED Sidney R. THOMAS, Barry G. SILVERMAN, Mark J. BENNETT. The judgment of this Court, entered 8/26/2025, takes effect this date. [Entered: 09/17/2025 08:45 AM] |
Filing 12
ORDER FILED. (Sidney R. THOMAS, Barry G. SILVERMAN, Mark J. BENNETT) The court has received the responses to the July 15, 2025 order. The court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal, because the district courts order denying defendants motion to dismiss or remand plaintiffs claims is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. See Digit. Equip. Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U.S. 863, 867-68 (1994) (discussing collateral order doctrine requirements and explaining that they are stringent). Appellants request to treat the notice of appeal as a petition for writ of mandamus is denied because appellants do not demonstrate that this case warrants the intervention of this court by means of the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). The motion (Docket Entry No. 8) to stay district court proceedings is denied as moot. DISMISSED. [Entered: 08/26/2025 03:26 PM]
|
| Filing 11 RESPONSE to Order - General OSC (DE 9) filed by Appellee Kristin Hart, Appellee E. H., Appellee W. H.. [Entered: 08/11/2025 04:18 PM] |
| Filing 10 RESPONSE to Order - General OSC (DE 9) filed by Appellant City of Redwood City, Appellant Daniel Mulholland, Appellant Roman Gomez, Appellant Leila Velez. [Entered: 08/01/2025 08:25 AM] |
|
Filing 9
ORDER FILED. To fall within the narrow class of orders satisfying the Supreme Courts collateral order doctrine, an order must (1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. Childs v. San Diego Fam. Hous. LLC, 22 F.4th 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349 (2006)). This court may therefore lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Within 21 days, appellants must either file a motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal or file a statement explaining why it should not be dismissed. If appellants do not do so, the court will dismiss the appeal. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. If appellants file a statement, appellees may file a combined response to this order and the motion to stay (Docket Entry No. 8) within 10 days. Briefing is stayed. [Entered: 07/15/2025 01:57 PM]
|
| Filing 8 MOTION to Stay Underlying Proceedings filed by Appellant City of Redwood City, Appellant Daniel Mulholland, Appellant Roman Gomez, Appellant Leila Velez. [Entered: 07/14/2025 02:48 PM] |
| Filing 7 RELEASED FROM MEDIATION (text only). This case is released from the Mediation Program. Counsel are requested to contact the Circuit Mediator should circumstances develop that warrant settlement discussions. [Entered: 07/11/2025 11:15 AM] |
| Filing 6 ADDED Counsel for Appellee Ayana C. Curry [Entered: 06/25/2025 03:13 PM] |
| Filing 5 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Ayana C. Curry for Appellee E. H., Appellee Kristin Hart, Appellee W. H.. [Entered: 06/25/2025 03:09 PM] |
| Filing 4 MEDIATION CONFERENCE SCHEDULED - DIAL-IN Assessment Conference, 7/11/2025, 11:00 a.m. PACIFIC Time. See order for instructions and details. [Entered: 06/25/2025 12:54 PM] |
| Filing 3 MEDIATION QUESTIONNAIRE filed by Appellant City of Redwood City, Appellant Daniel Mulholland, Appellant Roman Gomez, Appellant Leila Velez. 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: 06/23/2025 02:09 PM] |
| Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Mediation Questionnaire due (Appellant) 6/23/2025, Appeal Opening Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellant) 7/28/2025, Appeal Answering Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellee) 8/25/2025. For appeal no. 25-3771, 4:21-cv-02653-YGR. 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: 06/16/2025 01:48 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 4:21-cv-02653-YGR 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 25-3771 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: 06/16/2025 01:43 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.
| Search for this case: Hart, et al. v. City of Redwood City, 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: KRISTIN HART, individually and as co-successor-in-interest to Decedent KYLE HART | |
| Represented By: | Mr. Benjamin Nisenbaum |
| Represented By: | John L. Burris |
| Represented By: | Ayana C. Curry |
| 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 | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: E. H., individually and as co-successor-in-interest to Decedent KYLE HART | |
| Represented By: | Mr. Benjamin Nisenbaum |
| Represented By: | John L. Burris |
| Represented By: | Ayana C. Curry |
| 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 | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: W. H., individually and as co-successor-in-interest to Decedent KYLE HART | |
| Represented By: | Mr. Benjamin Nisenbaum |
| Represented By: | John L. Burris |
| Represented By: | Ayana C. Curry |
| 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 | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: CITY OF REDWOOD CITY, a municipal corporation | |
| Represented By: | Mr. Kevin Gilbert |
| Represented By: | Carolyn Aguilar |
| 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 | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: DANIEL MULHOLLAND, individually and in his capacity as Chief of Police for the CITY OF REDWOOD CITY | |
| Represented By: | Mr. Kevin Gilbert |
| Represented By: | Carolyn Aguilar |
| 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 | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: ROMAN GOMEZ, individually and in his official capacity as a Police Officer for the CITY OF REDWOOD CITY | |
| Represented By: | Mr. Kevin Gilbert |
| Represented By: | Carolyn Aguilar |
| 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 | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: LEILA VELEZ, individually and in her official capacity as a Police Officer for the CITY OF REDWOOD CITY | |
| Represented By: | Mr. Kevin Gilbert |
| Represented By: | Carolyn Aguilar |
| 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 | [ 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.
