civil-litigation federal-courts court-watch

Lamar Myers v. Aracely Urbina et al

26-cv-02710 C.D. Cal.
Active Active litigation Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

Lamar Myers v. Aracely Urbina et al is a civil case with an unknown court. The case was filed under docket number 26-cv-02710. An extending time to answer is a standard document filed by a party to request additional time to respond to a complaint. This document is typically used to request a short extension of time to respond to a complaint, and it does not indicate any significant developments in the case. The case is currently in a pre-trial stage.

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

Key Issues

  • Extending time to answer
  • Request additional time
  • Pre-trial stage
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

2:26-cv-02710 Lamar Myers v. Aracely Urbina et al

Other · Apr 21, 2026

newspaper

Coverage

1 article

1 source tracked

groups

Participants

1 Defendant, 1 Plaintiff

2 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 April 21, 2026.

The visible party/entity graph currently includes Aracely Urbina, 2:26-cv-02710 Lamar Myers.

Press monitoring has found 1 related article from 1 distinct source.

chronic

The Story So Far

Updated 16 hours, 26 minutes ago

Lamar Myers v. Aracely Urbina et al is an active civil matter in Central District of California under docket 26-cv-02710.

The dispute currently identifies 2:26-cv-02710 Lamar Myers on one side and Aracely Urbina on the other. The case is currently organized around Extending time to answer, Request additional time, Pre-trial stage.

Aracely Urbina et al is a civil case with an unknown court. The case was filed under docket number 26-cv-02710. An extending time to answer is a standard document filed by a party to request additional time to respond to a complaint.

This document is typically used to request a short extension of time to respond to a complaint, and it does not indicate any significant developments in the case. The case is currently in a pre-trial stage.

On April 21, 2026, the docket recorded a other: The court granted defendant Aracely Urbina's request to extend her time to answer the complaint in Lamar Myers v. Aracely Urbina et al, giving her 30 days or less to respond. This means the deadline for her response has been pushed back.

The extension is.

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

1 event
info
Other April 21, 2026

2:26-cv-02710 Lamar Myers v. Aracely Urbina et al

The court granted defendant Aracely Urbina's request to extend her time to answer the complaint in Lamar Myers v. Aracely Urbina et al, giving her 30 days or less to respond. This means the deadline for her response has been pushed back. The extension is likely to give Urbina more time to gather evidence or consult with her attorney.

Advertisement
newspaper

Press Coverage

1 article
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

1 outlet · 1 article

Timeline events

1 record on file

Last updated

16 hours, 26 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.