No. 20-483
Artem Koshkalda v. Seiko Epson Corporation, et al.
Tags: abuse-of-discretion appellate-review case-termination civil-procedure district-court due-process federal-rules-civil-procedure legal-order ninth-circuit sanctions
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Immigration
SocialSecurity Immigration
Latest Conference:
2020-12-11
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the district court err in imposing case-terminating sanctions?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did The United States District Court District of Nevada (hereinafter “NV Court”) err in its Report and Recommendation Order For Case Terminating Sanctions (hereinafter “RORA”) and in its order adopting it? 2. Did United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (hereinafter “Ninth Circuit”) err in affirming NV Court’s orders?
Docket Entries
2020-12-14
Petition DENIED.
2020-11-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/11/2020.
2020-11-16
Reply of petitioner Artem Koshkalda filed. (Distributed)
2020-11-10
Brief of respondents Seiko Epson Corporation, et al. in opposition filed.
2020-07-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 13, 2020)
Attorneys
Seiko Epson Corporation, et al.
Annie Shou-Chi Wang — Wang Law Corporation, Respondent
Annie Shou-Chi Wang — Wang Law Corporation, Respondent