civil-litigation federal-courts court-watch

Defendants get 30-day extension to answer complaint in Keith Feder v. Blue Cross case

26-cv-02286 C.D. Cal.
Active Active litigation Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

Keith Feder, M.D., Inc. v. Blue Cross of California et al is a civil case. The case was filed in the unknown court with docket number 26-cv-02286. The current summary indicates that the defendants have been granted an extension to answer the complaint within 30 days or less.

No timeline activity recorded yet. This page will grow as rulings and filings land.

Key Issues

  • Extension to answer
  • 30-day deadline
smart_toy Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records. How we verify our work.
fact_check

Docket Snapshot

account_balance

Court

C.D. Cal.

Central District of California · 9th Circuit · CA

tag

Docket

Not captured

Civil

timeline

Stage

Active litigation

Active

event

Filed

Date unavailable

Not in the available feed

new_releases

Latest Filing

5:26-cv-02286 Erik Edgardo Santos-Alvarado v. Administrator, Desert View Facility et al

Other · May 01, 2026

newspaper

Coverage

2 articles

1 source tracked

groups

Participants

2 Defendants, 2 Plaintiffs

4 linked entities

gavel

Judge

Not assigned in feed

What the record shows

This case is tied to Central District of California, a federal district court in CA.

The newest docket activity we have is a other dated May 01, 2026.

The visible party/entity graph currently includes Blue Cross of California, Administrator, Desert View Facility, 2:26-cv-02286 Keith Feder, M.D., Inc and others.

Press monitoring has found 2 related articles from 1 distinct source.

chronic

The Story So Far

Updated 2 days, 12 hours ago

Keith Feder, M.D., Inc. v. Blue Cross of California et al is an active civil matter in Central District of California under docket 26-cv-02286.

The dispute currently identifies 2:26-cv-02286 Keith Feder, M.D., Inc and 5:26-cv-02286 Erik Edgardo Santos-Alvarado on one side and Administrator, Desert View Facility and Blue Cross of California on the other. The case is currently organized around Extension to answer, 30-day deadline.

Blue Cross of California et al is a civil case. The case was filed in the unknown court with docket number 26-cv-02286. The current summary indicates that the defendants have been granted an extension to answer the complaint within 30 days or less.

On May 1, 2026, the docket recorded a other: A Notice of Resources for ProSe Litigants was filed. On April 24, 2026, the docket recorded a other: The court granted Blue Cross of California an extension to respond to the complaint filed by Keith Feder, M.D., Inc. The extension allows Blue Cross of California 30 days or less to file its answer.

This means the case will not proceed until Blue Cross of.

The next thing to watch is whether the latest other produces a substantive order, a scheduling change, a settlement signal, or a filing that clarifies the parties' positions.

smart_toy Juryvine case narrative generated from the full docket timeline. How we verify our work.

About This Court

Central District of California (C.D. Cal.) is a federal district court in the 9th Circuit, CA.

Advertisement

Case Timeline

2 events
info
Other May 1, 2026

5:26-cv-02286 Erik Edgardo Santos-Alvarado v. Administrator, Desert View Facility et al

A Notice of Resources for ProSe Litigants was filed.

info
Other April 24, 2026

2:26-cv-02286 Keith Feder, M.D., Inc. v. Blue Cross of California et al

The court granted Blue Cross of California an extension to respond to the complaint filed by Keith Feder, M.D., Inc. The extension allows Blue Cross of California 30 days or less to file its answer. This means the case will not proceed until Blue Cross of California has had time to respond.

Advertisement
show_chart

Coverage Timeline

newspaper

Press Coverage

2 articles
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

1 outlet · 2 articles

Timeline events

2 records on file

Last updated

6 hours, 3 minutes ago

Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.