Jackson v. Upgrade, Inc.
| JUSTIN JACKSON |
| UPGRADE, INC. |
| 26-377 |
| January 20, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Civil Rights Jobs |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 9, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
ORDER FILED. Barry G. SILVERMAN, Richard A. PAEZ, Holly A. THOMAS The March 24, 2026 order stated this court will not entertain further filings in this closed case. The clerk will strike the filing at Docket Entry No. 9. The mandate will issue in due course. To date appellant has not filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment entered in the district court on June 3, 2026. [Entered: 06/09/2026 02:48 PM]
|
| Filing 10 Document received in this closed case after court order stating that no further filings will be entertained. Order and docket sheet sent to filer. [Entered: 04/09/2026 02:14 PM] |
| Filing 9 STRICKEN PER DE 11 PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING and PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC filed by Appellant Justin Jackson.[No further filings will be entertained in this closed case] [Entered: 03/25/2026 11:31 AM] [Edited: 06/09/2026 02:52 PM] |
|
Filing 8
ORDER FILED. Barry G. SILVERMAN, Richard A. PAEZ, Holly A. THOMAS The January 26, 2026 order dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On February 9, 2026, appellant filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion to stay arbitration. Appellant 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 request for mandamus relief (Docket Entry No. 5) is therefore denied, and the motion to stay arbitration pending review is denied as moot. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. [Entered: 03/24/2026 04:46 PM]
|
| Filing 6 DEFECTIVE---EXCERPTS OF RECORD submitted for filing by Appellant Justin Jackson.[Filed under wrong event. Correct entry#7] [Entered: 02/11/2026 10:09 AM] [Edited: 02/12/2026 01:44 PM] |
| Filing 5 EMERGENCY MOTION for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Appellant Justin Jackson. [Entered: 02/09/2026 02:47 PM] |
| Filing 4 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and CR 26.1-1 filed by Appellant Justin Jackson. [Entered: 02/09/2026 02:43 PM] |
| Filing 7 SUPPLEMENT to EMERGENCY MOTION for Miscellaneous Relief filed by Appellant Justin Jackson.[COURT ENTERED-Filing from DE#6] [Entered: 02/12/2026 01:43 PM] |
|
Filing 3
ORDER FILED. (Barry G. SILVERMAN, Richard A. PAEZ, Holly A. THOMAS) This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the January 6, 2026 order challenged in the notice of appeal is not final or immediately appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291. 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). DISMISSED. [Entered: 01/26/2026 04:00 PM]
|
| Filing 2 SCHEDULE NOTICE. Appeal Opening Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellant) 3/2/2026, Appeal Answering Brief (No Transcript Due) (Appellee) 3/31/2026. For appeal no. 26-377, 2:25-cv-04664-MTL. 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: 01/20/2026 10:43 AM] |
| Filing 1 CASE OPENED. A copy of your notice of appeal / petition filed in 2:25-cv-04664-MTL 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 26-377 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: 01/20/2026 10:40 AM] |
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: Jackson v. Upgrade, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: JUSTIN JACKSON | |
| Represented By: | Justin Jackson |
| 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: UPGRADE, INC. | |
| Represented By: | Ms. Sarah K. Watt |
| Represented By: | Robert Shawn Oller |
| 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.
