Moore v. Yerkey, et al.
| SCOTT ROBERT MOORE |
| AMY C. YERKEY, in her official capacity as Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, South District (Department S9), and for purposes of prospective relief under Title II of the ADA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, a public entity subject to Title II of the ADA, ROBERT G. LUNA, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Los Angeles County and ROSANNA DOMINGO, individually and in her capacity as Trustee of the Domingo Family Trust |
| 25-6509 |
| October 15, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 16, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 MANDATE ISSUED Barry G. SILVERMAN, Richard C. TALLMAN, Patrick J. BUMATAY. The judgment of this Court, entered 11/24/2025, takes effect this date. [Entered: 12/16/2025 11:03 AM] |
Filing 6
ORDER FILED. (Barry G. SILVERMAN, Richard C. TALLMAN, Patrick J. BUMATAY) This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the October 3, 2025 and October 7, 2025 orders challenged in the notice of appeal are not final or immediately appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291; Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306 (9th Cir. 1989) (denial of temporary restraining order is appealable only if the denial is tantamount to the denial of a preliminary injunction); Branson v. City of Los Angeles, 912 F.2d 334, 336 (9th Cir. 1990) (denial of reconsideration of non-appealable order is itself not appealable); United States v. Washington, 573 F.2d 1121, 1122 (9th Cir. 1978) (order denying motion to disqualify judge is not final or appealable). This appeal is therefore dismissed. See 9th Cir. R. 3-6(b) (if court determines it lacks jurisdiction, court may dismiss appeal without notice or further proceedings). All pending motions are denied as moot. DISMISSED. [Entered: 11/24/2025 03:10 PM]
|
| Filing 5 EMERGENCY MOTION for Injunctive Relief filed by Appellant Scott Robert Moore. [Entered: 10/21/2025 08:53 AM] [Edited: 10/21/2025 09:16 AM] |
| Filing 4 Miscellaneous Pro Se Filings Filed [Entered: 10/21/2025 08:50 AM] |
| Filing 3 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and CR 26.1-1 filed by Appellant Scott Robert Moore. [Entered: 10/21/2025 08:47 AM] |
| Filing 2 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SCHEDULE NOTICE. Preliminary Injunction Opening Brief Due (Appellant) 11/12/2025. For appeal no. 25-6509, 2:25-cv-09463-AB-BFM.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: 10/15/2025 04:01 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 2:25-cv-09463-AB-BFM 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 25-6509 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: 10/15/2025 03:48 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: Moore v. Yerkey, 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: SCOTT ROBERT MOORE | |
| Represented By: | Scott Robert Moore |
| 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: AMY C. YERKEY, in her official capacity as Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, South District (Department S9), and for purposes of prospective relief under Title II of the ADA | |
| 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: LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, a public entity subject to Title II of the ADA | |
| 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: ROBERT G. LUNA, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Los Angeles County | |
| 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: ROSANNA DOMINGO, individually and in her capacity as Trustee of the Domingo Family Trust | |
| 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.
