City of Los Angeles v. United States District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles
| CITY OF LOS ANGELES |
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES |
| COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LA ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, LOS ANGELES CATHOLIC WORKER, LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK, ORANGE COUNTY CATHOLIC WORKER, JOSEPH BURK, HARRY TASHDJIAN, WENZIAL JARRELL, KARYN PINSKY, CHARLES MALOW, CHARLES VAN SCOY, GEORGE FREM, GARY WHITTER and LEANDRO SUAREZ |
| 26-784 |
| February 9, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 8, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 22 NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT on Wednesday, May 20, 2026 - 09:00 A.M. - Courtroom 1 - Scheduled Location: Pasadena 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. [26-784] [Entered: 03/08/2026 12:08 PM] |
| Filing 21 RESPONSE to notice of case being considered for oral argument filed by Theane Evangelis. [Entered: 02/25/2026 06:58 PM] |
| Filing 20 NOTICE: This case is being considered for an upcoming oral argument calendar in Pasadena. Please review the Pasadena sitting dates for May 2026 at #http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/court_sessions. Absent an irreconcilable conflict, the court expects you to appear and argue your case during this month. 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) IMMEDIATELY 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. [Case List] [Entered: 02/25/2026 09:55 AM] |
Filing 19
ORDER FILED. Milan D. SMITH, Jr., Jacqueline H. NGUYEN, Lucy H. KOH The court has received the answers to the petition for a writ of mandamus and the reply. The clerk will place this case on the next available calendar, which is May 2026. See 9th Cir. Gen. Order 3.3(f). [Entered: 02/24/2026 11:34 AM]
|
| Filing 18 REPLY to Answer (DE 17) filed by . [Entered: 02/20/2026 07:44 PM] |
| Filing 17 ANSWER to Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and-or Prohibition (DE 1) filed by Real Party in Interest LA Alliance for Human Rights, Real Party in Interest Joseph Burk, Real Party in Interest Harry Tashdjian, Real Party in Interest Wenzial Jarrell, Real Party in Interest Karyn Pinsky, Real Party in Interest Charles Malow, Real Party in Interest Charles Van Scoy, Real Party in Interest George Frem, Real Party in Interest Gary Whitter, Real Party in Interest Leandro Suarez. [Court entered filing to correct DE 13] [Entered: 02/18/2026 04:11 PM] |
| Filing 16 ANSWER to Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and-or Prohibition (DE 1) filed by Real Party in Interest Los Angeles Catholic Worker, Real Party in Interest Los Angeles Community Action Network, Real Party in Interest Orange County Catholic Worker. [Court entered filing to correct DE 14, court edit to remove PDFs not filed by this party] [Entered: 02/18/2026 11:00 AM] [Edited: 02/19/2026 09:47 AM] |
| Filing 15 MOTION for Judicial Notice filed by Real Party in Interest Los Angeles Catholic Worker, Real Party in Interest Los Angeles Community Action Network, Real Party in Interest Orange County Catholic Worker. [Entered: 02/17/2026 10:30 PM] |
| Filing 14 DEFECTIVE---ANSWERING BRIEF submitted for filing by Real Party in Interest Los Angeles Catholic Worker, Real Party in Interest Los Angeles Community Action Network, Real Party in Interest Orange County Catholic Worker. [Wrong filing type, corrected in DE 16] [Entered: 02/17/2026 10:22 PM] [Edited: 02/18/2026 11:01 AM] |
| Filing 13 DEFECTIVE---ANSWERING BRIEF submitted for filing by Real Party in Interest LA Alliance for Human Rights, Real Party in Interest Joseph Burk, Real Party in Interest Harry Tashdjian, Real Party in Interest Wenzial Jarrell, Real Party in Interest Karyn Pinsky, Real Party in Interest Charles Malow, Real Party in Interest Charles Van Scoy, Real Party in Interest George Frem, Real Party in Interest Gary Whitter, Real Party in Interest Leandro Suarez. [Wrong filing type, corrected in DE 16] [Entered: 02/17/2026 07:23 PM] [Edited: 02/18/2026 11:01 AM] |
|
Filing 12
ORDER FILED. M. SMITH, NGUYEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges. The request for an administrative stay is denied. See Doe #1 v. Trump, 944 F.3d 1222, 1223 (9th Cir. 2019). Real parties in interest must file an answer to this petition for a writ of mandamus within 7 days. See Fed. R. App. P. 21(b). The district court may also address the petition if it so desires. If the district court elects to address the petition, it may file an answer with this court within 7 days, or issue a supplemental order and serve a copy on this court within 7 days. [Entered: 02/09/2026 09:34 PM]
|
| Filing 11 ADDED Counsel for Real Party in Interest Louis R. Miller, Counsel for Real Party in Interest Jennifer Mira Hashmall, Counsel for Real Party in Interest Jason Tokoro [Entered: 02/09/2026 02:32 PM] |
| Filing 10 SCHEDULE NOTICE for Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and-or Prohibition. [Entered: 02/09/2026 02:24 PM] |
| Filing 9 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 2/9/2026. The U.S. Court of Appeals docket number 26-784 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: 02/09/2026 02:23 PM] |
| Filing 8 EXHIBITS to Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and-or Prohibition filed by Petitioner City of Los Angeles. [Entered: 02/09/2026 02:20 PM] |
| Filing 7 EXHIBITS to Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and-or Prohibition filed by Petitioner City of Los Angeles. [Entered: 02/09/2026 02:20 PM] |
| Filing 6 EXHIBITS to Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and-or Prohibition filed by Petitioner City of Los Angeles. [Entered: 02/09/2026 02:20 PM] |
| Filing 5 PETITION for a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition filed by Petitioner City of Los Angeles. [Entered: 02/09/2026 02:20 PM] |
| Filing 4 EXHIBITS to Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and-or Prohibition filed by Petitioner City of Los Angeles. [Entered: 02/09/2026 02:20 PM] |
| Filing 3 EXHIBITS to Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and-or Prohibition filed by Petitioner City of Los Angeles. [Entered: 02/09/2026 02:20 PM] |
| Filing 2 EXHIBITS to Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and-or Prohibition filed by Petitioner City of Los Angeles. [Entered: 02/09/2026 02:20 PM] |
| Filing 1 PETITION for a Writ of Mandamus and/or Prohibition filed by Petitioner City of Los Angeles. [Entered: 02/09/2026 02:20 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.
