Doe v. United States Office of Personnel Management, et al.
| JOHN DOE |
| UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION, VERONICA PERAZA, HYUNJI AHN, YOUSSEF E. YOUSSEF, SARA DULL, REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, UCSF MEDICAL CENTER, ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM and EDEN MEDICAL CENTER |
| 25-7438 |
| November 25, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other Statutory Actions |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 21, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 57 SUBMITTED ON THE BRIEFS to Kim McLane WARDLAW, Carlos T. BEA, Gabriel P. SANCHEZ. [Entered: 05/21/2026 11:47 AM] |
| Filing 56 CLERK ACTION: Reply Brief and Excerpts of Record submitted at DE 40, DE 41, DE 42, DE 43, DE 44, DE 45 by Appellant John Doe are filed. No paper copies are required. [Entered: 04/15/2026 01:11 PM] |
Filing 55
ORDER FILED. The Court is of the unanimous opinion that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and record and that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Therefore, this matter is ordered submitted on the briefs and record without oral argument on May 21, 2026, in San Francisco, California. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The Court GRANTS Appellants motion for leave to file multiple reply briefs (Dkt. No. 46). The Court DENIES as moot Appellants motion to appear by video for oral argument (Dkt. No. 52). [Entered: 04/15/2026 11:41 AM]
|
| Filing 54 CITATION of Supplemental Authorities (28j Letter) filed by Appellant John Doe. [Entered: 03/27/2026 03:54 PM] |
| Filing 53 CITATION of Supplemental Authorities (28j Letter) filed by Appellee Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. [Entered: 03/23/2026 03:44 PM] |
| Filing 52 MOTION to Present Oral Argument by Video or Telephone filed by Appellant John Doe. [Entered: 03/14/2026 11:06 PM] |
| Filing 51 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT on Thursday, May 21, 2026 - 09:30 A.M. - Courtroom 1 - Scheduled Location: San Francisco CA View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case #here. NOTE: Although your case is currently scheduled for oral argument, the panel may decide to submit the case on the briefs instead. See Fed. R. App. P. 34. Absent further order of the court, if the court does determine that oral argument is required in this case, you are expected to appear in person at the Courthouse. If an in person appearance would pose a hardship, you must file a motion for permission to appear remotely by video, using ACMS filing type Motion to Appear Remotely for Oral Argument. Such a motion must be filed within 7 days of this notice, absent exigent circumstances. Please note that if you do file a motion to appear remotely, the court strongly prefers video over telephone appearance. Therefore, if you wish to appear remotely by telephone you will need to justify that request in your motion and receive explicit permission to do so. Be sure to review the #GUIDELINES for important information about your hearing. If you are the specific attorney or self-represented party who will be arguing, use the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE filing type in ACMS no later than 28 days before the hearing date. No form or other attachment is required. If you will not be arguing, do not file an acknowledgment of hearing notice. [25-7438] [Entered: 03/08/2026 05:06 PM] |
| Filing 50 RESPONSE to notice of case being considered for oral argument filed by Jonathan Elias Chernoguz. [Entered: 02/18/2026 09:51 AM] |
| Filing 49 RESPONSE to notice of case being considered for oral argument filed by Patrick Colin Stokes. [Entered: 02/17/2026 01:32 PM] |
| Filing 48 RESPONSE to notice of case being considered for oral argument filed by Aaron T. Schultz. [Entered: 02/17/2026 01:08 PM] |
| Filing 47 NOTICE: This case is being considered for an upcoming oral argument calendar in San Francisco. Please review the San Francisco sitting dates for May 2026 and the subsequent sitting month in that location at #http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/court_sessions. Absent an irreconcilable conflict, the court expects you to appear and argue your case during one of these two months. If you have an irreconcilable conflict on any of the dates, please consult with opposing counsel to propose an alternate date and/or location and file Form 32 (#http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/form32.pdf) within 3 business days of this notice using the ACMS filing type Response to Case Being Considered for Oral Argument. Please follow the form's instructions (#http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/form32instructions.pdf) carefully. If the parties wish to discuss settlement before an argument date is set, they should jointly request referral to the mediation unit by filing a motion within 3 business days of this notice, using the filing type: Motion to Refer to Mediation. You will receive notice that your case has been assigned to a calendar approximately 10 weeks before the scheduled oral argument date. [25-7438] [Entered: 02/12/2026 01:44 PM] |
| Filing 46 MOTION for Leave to File Reply filed by Appellant John Doe. [Entered: 02/12/2026 10:49 AM] |
| Filing 45 EXCERPTS OF RECORD submitted for filing by Appellant John Doe. [Entered: 02/10/2026 08:48 PM] [Edited: 02/13/2026 09:27 AM] |
| Filing 44 REPLY BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellant John Doe. [Entered: 02/10/2026 08:40 PM] [Edited: 02/13/2026 09:26 AM] |
| Filing 43 REPLY BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellant John Doe. [Entered: 02/10/2026 08:39 PM] [Edited: 02/13/2026 09:25 AM] |
| Filing 42 REPLY BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellant John Doe. [Entered: 02/10/2026 08:37 PM] [Edited: 02/13/2026 09:25 AM] |
| Filing 41 REPLY BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellant John Doe. [Entered: 02/10/2026 08:36 PM] [Edited: 02/13/2026 09:24 AM] |
| Filing 40 REPLY BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellant John Doe.--[COURT UPDATE: Corrected PDF attached as of 2/13/2026, REPLACING original attachment] [Entered: 02/10/2026 08:34 PM] [Edited: 02/13/2026 09:23 AM] |
| Filing 39 CLERK ACTION: Answering Brief submitted at DE 33 and Excerpts of Record at DE 35 by Appellee Sara Dull, Appellee Eden Medical Center are filed. No paper copies are required. [Entered: 01/22/2026 08:50 AM] |
| Filing 38 CLERK ACTION: Answering Brief submitted at DE 31 and Excerpts of Record at DE 32 by Appellee Regents of the University of California are filed. No paper copies are required. [Entered: 01/21/2026 08:52 AM] |
| Filing 37 CLERK ACTION: Answering Brief submitted at DE 30 by Appellee Veronica Peraza, Appellee Youssef E. Youssef, Appellee Alameda Health System is filed. No paper copies are required. [Entered: 01/21/2026 08:50 AM] |
| Filing 36 CLERK ACTION: Answering Brief submitted at DE 29 by Appellee United States Office of Personnel Management is filed. No paper copies are required. [Entered: 01/21/2026 08:48 AM] |
| Filing 35 EXCERPTS OF RECORD submitted for filing by Appellee Sara Dull, Appellee Eden Medical Center.--[COURT UPDATE: Corrected PDF attached as of 1/22/2026, REPLACING original attachment] [Entered: 01/20/2026 08:09 PM] [Edited: 01/22/2026 08:49 AM] |
| Filing 34 DEFECTIVE --- SUPPLEMENT to Response to Motion for Injunctive Relief (DE 17) filed by Appellee Sara Dull, Appellee Eden Medical Center.--[Wrong filing, correct entry is DE 35] [Entered: 01/20/2026 08:04 PM] [Edited: 01/21/2026 09:12 AM] |
| Filing 33 ANSWERING BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellee Sara Dull, Appellee Eden Medical Center.--[COURT UPDATE: Corrected PDF attached as of 1/22/2026, REPLACING original attachment] [Entered: 01/20/2026 07:59 PM] [Edited: 01/22/2026 08:48 AM] |
| Filing 32 EXCERPTS OF RECORD submitted for filing by Appellee Regents of the University of California. [Entered: 01/20/2026 07:28 PM] |
| Filing 31 ANSWERING BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellee Regents of the University of California. [Entered: 01/20/2026 07:26 PM] |
| Filing 30 ANSWERING BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellee Veronica Peraza, Appellee Youssef E. Youssef, Appellee Alameda Health System. [Entered: 01/20/2026 06:56 PM] |
| Filing 29 ANSWERING BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellee United States Office of Personnel Management. [Entered: 01/20/2026 05:25 PM] |
| Filing 28 CLERK ACTION: Answering Brief submitted at DE 26 and Excerpts of Record at DE 27 by Appellee Blue Cross Blue Shield Association are filed. No paper copies are required. [Entered: 01/20/2026 03:14 PM] |
| Filing 27 EXCERPTS OF RECORD submitted for filing by Appellee Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. [Entered: 01/20/2026 02:33 PM] |
| Filing 26 ANSWERING BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellee Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. [Entered: 01/20/2026 02:30 PM] |
|
Filing 25
ORDER FILED. The emergency motion (Docket Entry Nos. 10, 11) for injunctive relief is denied. See Feldman v. Ariz. Secy of State, 843 F.3d 366, 367 (9th Cir. 2016) (The standard for evaluating an injunction pending appeal is similar to that employed by district courts in deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction.); see also Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (defining standard for preliminary injunction in district court). The request to expedite this appeal (contained in Docket Entry No. 11) is also denied. Appellees may raise any arguments regarding the courts jurisdiction to hear this appeal in the answering briefs. The previously established briefing schedule remains in effect. [Entered: 01/14/2026 12:13 PM]
|
| Filing 24 REPLY to Response to Motion for Injunctive Relief (DE 17) filed by Appellant John Doe. [Entered: 01/13/2026 04:43 AM] |
| Filing 23 REPLY to Response to Motion for Injunctive Relief (DE 16) filed by Appellant John Doe. [Entered: 01/13/2026 04:41 AM] |
| Filing 22 REPLY to Response to Motion for Injunctive Relief (DE 15) filed by Appellant John Doe. [Entered: 01/13/2026 04:40 AM] |
| Filing 21 REPLY to Response to Motion for Injunctive Relief (DE 14) filed by Appellant John Doe. [Entered: 01/13/2026 04:37 AM] |
| Filing 20 RESPONSE to Motion for Injunctive Relief (DE 11) filed by Appellee Veronica Peraza, Appellee Youssef E. Youssef, Appellee Alameda Health System. [Entered: 01/12/2026 06:53 PM] |
| Filing 19 ADDED Counsel for Appellee Jonathan Elias Chernoguz [Entered: 01/12/2026 01:09 PM] |
| Filing 18 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Jonathan Elias Chernoguz for Appellee Regents of the University of California, Appellee UCSF Medical Center. [Entered: 01/12/2026 12:43 PM] |
| Filing 17 RESPONSE to Motion for Injunctive Relief (DE 11) filed by Appellee Sara Dull, Appellee Eden Medical Center. [Entered: 01/12/2026 08:17 AM] |
| Filing 16 RESPONSE to Motion for Injunctive Relief (DE 11) filed by Appellee Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. [Entered: 01/12/2026 07:17 AM] |
| Filing 15 RESPONSE to Motion for Injunctive Relief (DE 11) filed by Appellee Regents of the University of California, Appellee UCSF Medical Center. [Entered: 01/12/2026 07:10 AM] |
| Filing 14 RESPONSE to Motion for Injunctive Relief (DE 11) filed by Appellee United States Office of Personnel Management. [Entered: 01/09/2026 05:28 PM] |
| Filing 13 CLERK ACTION: Opening Brief submitted at DE 8 and Excerpts of Record at DE 9 by Appellant John Doe are filed. No paper copies are required. [Entered: 01/09/2026 08:39 AM] |
|
Filing 12
ORDER FILED. Any opposition to the emergency motion for injunctive relief filed January 7, 2026 is due 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time on Monday, January 12, 2026. The optional reply is due Tuesday, January 13, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time. [Entered: 01/08/2026 10:06 AM]
|
| Filing 11 MOTION for Injunctive Relief filed by Appellant John Doe. [COURT ENTERED FILING to refile motion filed in DE 10.] [Entered: 01/07/2026 08:44 AM] |
| Filing 10 Emergency MOTION Circuit Rule 27-3 Certificate filed by Appellant John Doe. [COURT UPDATE: Removed motion from certificate; motion refiled at DE 11.] [Entered: 01/07/2026 04:04 AM] [Edited: 01/07/2026 08:51 AM] |
| Filing 9 EXCERPTS OF RECORD submitted for filing by Appellant John Doe. [Entered: 12/23/2025 03:48 PM] |
| Filing 8 OPENING BRIEF submitted for filing by Appellant John Doe.--[COURT UPDATE: Corrected PDF attached as of 12/30/2025, REPLACING original attachment] [Entered: 12/23/2025 03:43 PM] [Edited: 12/30/2025 10:10 AM] |
| Filing 7 MAIL RETURNED. DE 2, 4 addressed to Counsel Aaron T. Schultz. Action taken: none (counsel registered for E-filing). [Entered: 12/15/2025 11:13 AM] |
| Filing 6 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and CR 26.1-1 filed by Appellee Sara Dull, Appellee Eden Medical Center. [Entered: 12/09/2025 03:25 PM] |
| Filing 5 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and CR 26.1-1 filed by Appellee Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. [Entered: 12/05/2025 02:52 PM] |
| Filing 4 MEDIATION ORDER: The Mediation Program of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals facilitates settlement while appeals are pending. See Fed. R. App. P. 33 and Ninth Cir. R. 33-1. By 12/8/2025, counsel for all parties intending to file briefs in this matter are requested to inform Steven Saltiel , Circuit Mediator, by email at [email protected] of their clients views on whether the issues on appeal or the underlying dispute might be appropriate for settlement presently or in the foreseeable future. Counsel are requested to include the Ninth Circuit case name and number in the subject line. This communication will be kept confidential, if requested, from the other parties in the case. This communication shall not be filed with the court. For more detailed information about the Mediation Program and its procedures generally, please see Mediation Program web site: www.ca9.uscourts.gov/mediation. The existing briefing schedule remains in effect. [Entered: 12/02/2025 03:47 PM] |
| Filing 3 MEDIATION QUESTIONNAIRE filed by Appellant John Doe. 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. --[COURT UPDATE: Attached PDF of certificate of service.] [Entered: 12/01/2025 12:29 AM] [Edited: 12/02/2025 05:12 PM] |
| Filing 2 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SCHEDULE NOTICE. Preliminary Injunction Answering Brief Due (Appellee) 1/20/2026, Mediation Questionnaire due (Appellant) 12/1/2025, Preliminary Injunction Opening Brief Due (Appellant) 12/23/2025. For appeal no. 25-7438, 3:25-cv-02930-RFL.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: 11/25/2025 04:13 PM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 3:25-cv-02930-RFL 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 25-7438 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: 11/25/2025 04:10 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.
