No. 18-1560
Richard Leland Neal v. B. Marc Neal, et al.
Tags: amended-complaint appellate-review civil-procedure district-court due-process federal-courts federal-rules motion-to-dismiss ninth-circuit pleadings rule-12(b)(6) standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess FourthAmendment
DueProcess FourthAmendment
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the Arizona District Court and the Ninth Circuit created a split by holding that "defendants timely responded to Plaintiffs amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss (pursuant F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(6)). If the Court denies the motion to dismiss Defendants will be required to answer Plaintiffs complaint; " App.la
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Arizona District Court and the Ninth Circuit created a split by holding that defendants timely responded to Plaintiff's amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss (pursuant F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(6))
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-08-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-08-06
Reply of petitioner Richard L. Neal filed. (Distributed)
2019-07-19
Brief of respondents B. Marc Neal, et al. in opposition filed.
2019-06-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 22, 2019)
Attorneys
B. Marc Neal, et al.
Robert L. Sirianni Jr. — Brownstone, P.A., Respondent
Richard L. Neal
Richard L. Neal — Petitioner