Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Artem Koshkalda v. Seiko Epson Corporation, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 19-56187 · judgment September 15, 2020

Certiorari denied · January 25, 2021
Pre-decision estimate: 0% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Questions presented

  1. Did The United States District Court Central District of California i err in denying Plaintiffs Motion To Set Aside a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal2 Filed By Fox Rothschild LLP on behalf of Trustee 3 ?

  2. Did the CA Court err in denying Plaintiffs Motion To Set Aside a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure4 Rule 41(a)(l)(A)(i), where Trustee did not file a motion for substitution as a plaintiff pursuant to FRCP Rule 25(c)?

  3. Did The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit5 err in affirming the CA Court orders? i The United States District Court Central District of California ("CA Court"); 2 Notice of Voluntary dismissal of the Case with prejudice filed by Fox Rothschild LLP on behalf of Trustee (hereinafter "Dismissal"); 3 E. Lynn Schoenmann, trustee of the Koshkalda's Estate in the case No. 18bk30016-HLB ("Trustee"); 4 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP"); 5 The United States Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit ("Ninth Circuit");

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Artem Koshkalda

For respondent
Annie Shou-Chi Wang
Wang Law Corporation

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Jan 25 2021
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Jan 06 2021
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021.
  3. Dec 31 2020
    Reply of petitioner Artem Koshkalda filed. (Distributed)
  4. Dec 22 2020
    Brief of respondents Seiko Epson Corporation, et al. in opposition filed.
  5. Nov 19 2020
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 28, 2020)