Yagman & Yagman & Re, et al v. USDC-CAC

Filing 920080114


Download PDF
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YAGMAN & YAGMAN & REICHMANN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. No. 07-74834 ORDER Filed December 31, 2007 Before: Alfred T. Goodwin, Stephen Reinhardt and William A. Fletcher, Circuit Judges. ORDER We have reviewed the petition for writ of mandamus, the supplement thereto, the district court's response and petitioner's replies. In its response to the petition, the district court conceded that, given the plain language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(D), it may mandate electronic filing only if it allows attorneys to opt out of receiving service electronically, and represented that it has taken steps to amend its rules accordingly. Therefore, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot. Petitioner's third, fourth and fifth replies present matters that were not addressed in the original petition or in the district court's response. Accordingly, those matters are not properly before this court, but may be raised subsequently in an appropriate proceeding. 171 172 YAGMAN & YAGMAN & REICHMANN v. USDC We grant petitioner's motion for costs. See Fed. R. App. P. 39(a). Petitioner may submit a bill of costs, and the district court may oppose it, pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1. We direct the Appellate Commissioner to determine the amount of the award. See 9th Cir. R. 39-1.9. PRINTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE--U.S. COURTS BY THOMSON/WEST--SAN FRANCISCO The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted 2007 Thomson/West.

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.

Why Is My Information Online?