Hines v. United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California
| Lisa R. Hines, Lisa Dunn and LISA A. HINES |
| UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA |
| DAVID KEITH GOTTLIEB, Trustee and UNITED STATES TRUSTEE |
| 25-7936 |
| December 18, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 10, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 Emergency MOTION Circuit Rule 27-3 Certificate filed by Petitioner Lisa A. Hines.[No further filings will be entertained in this closed caseper 1/29/26] [Entered: 03/10/2026 11:03 AM] [Edited: 03/10/2026 11:48 AM] |
| Filing 12 Emergency MOTION Circuit Rule 27-3 Certificate filed by Petitioner Lisa A. Hines.[No further filings will be entertained in this closed caseper 1/29/26] [Entered: 03/09/2026 02:11 PM] [Edited: 03/09/2026 02:17 PM] |
| Filing 11 Emergency MOTION Circuit Rule 27-3 Certificate filed by Petitioner Lisa A. Hines.[No further filings will be entertained in this closed caseper 1/29/26 [Entered: 03/09/2026 02:09 PM] [Edited: 03/09/2026 02:17 PM] |
| Filing 10 Emergency MOTION Circuit Rule 27-3 Certificate filed by Petitioner Lisa A. Hines.[No further filings will be entertained in this closed caseper 1/29/26] [Entered: 03/09/2026 02:07 PM] [Edited: 03/09/2026 02:16 PM] |
Filing 9
ORDER FILED. (Barry G. SILVERMAN, Richard A. PAEZ, Holly A. THOMAS) Petitioner has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See In re Mersho, 6 F.4th 891, 897 (9th Cir. 2021) (To determine whether a writ of mandamus should be granted, we weigh the five factors outlined in Bauman v. United States District Court.); Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977). The petition, as supplemented and amended, is denied. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. DENIED. [Entered: 01/29/2026 09:30 AM]
|
| Filing 8 SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION for a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition filed by Petitioner Lisa A. Hines. [Entered: 01/04/2026 05:42 PM] |
| Filing 7 SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION for a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition filed by Petitioner Lisa A. Hines. [Entered: 01/04/2026 05:41 PM] |
| Filing 6 SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION for a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition filed by Petitioner Lisa A. Hines. [Entered: 01/04/2026 05:40 PM] |
| Filing 5 SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION for a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition filed by Petitioner Lisa A. Hines. [Entered: 01/04/2026 05:39 PM] |
| Filing 4 SUPPLEMENTAL PETITION for a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition filed by Petitioner Lisa A. Hines. [Entered: 01/02/2026 02:43 PM] |
| Filing 3 SCHEDULE NOTICE for Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and-or Prohibition. [Entered: 12/18/2025 02:28 PM] |
| Filing 2 CASE OPENED. Your case opening documents have been received in the Clerk's office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on 12/18/2025. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 25-7936 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 #Appellate Practice Guide. Attorneys should consider the court's #Appellate Mentoring Program for assistance. [Entered: 12/18/2025 02:26 PM] |
| Filing 1 PETITION for a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition filed by Petitioner Lisa Hines. [Entered: 12/18/2025 02:24 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.
