No. 20-735
Artem Koshkalda v. Seiko Epson Corporation, et al.
Tags: civil-procedure dismissal district-court-procedure federal-rules-civil-procedure frcp-rule-25 frcp-rule-41 rule-25 rule-41 standing substitution-of-parties voluntary-dismissal
Latest Conference:
2021-01-22
Question Presented (from Petition)
Did The United States District Court Central District of California err in denying Plaintiffs Motion To Set Aside a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Filed By Fox Rothschild LLP on behalf of Trustee?
Did the CA Court err in denying Plaintiffs Motion To Set Aside a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(l)(A)(i), where Trustee did not file a motion for substitution as a plaintiff pursuant to FRCP Rule 25(c)?
Did The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit err in affirming the CA Court orders?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the district court err in denying the motion to set aside a notice of voluntary dismissal?
Docket Entries
2021-01-25
Petition DENIED.
2021-01-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021.
2020-12-31
Reply of petitioner Artem Koshkalda filed. (Distributed)
2020-12-22
Brief of respondents Seiko Epson Corporation, et al. in opposition filed.
2020-11-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 28, 2020)
Attorneys
Artem Koshkalda
Artem Koshkalda — Petitioner
Seiko Epson Corporation, et al.
Annie Shou-Chi Wang — Wang Law Corporation, Respondent