Arnulfo Fagot-Maximo files notice of appeal challenging 472 order with exhibits
Case Summary
Arnulfo Fagot-Maximo filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the 472 Order. The filing included an exhibit and envelope and was entered on January 29, 2025.
Latest development
NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 472 ORDER, filed by Arnulfo Fagot-Maximo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Envelope) (Dest) (Entered: 01/29/2025)
Order · May 10, 2026
The court issued an order.
Key Issues
- • Notice of Appeal
- • Challenge to district court order
- • Supporting exhibits
Docket Snapshot
Court
Court not identified
Awaiting court metadata
Docket
Not captured
Appellate
Stage
Court order issued
Active
Filed
Date unavailable
Not in the available feed
Latest Filing
NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 472 ORDER, filed by Arnulfo Fagot-Maximo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Envelope) (Dest)
Order · May 11, 2026
Coverage
0 articles
0 sources tracked
Participants
Parties not parsed yet
0 linked entities
Judge
Not assigned in feed
What the record shows
The court metadata has not been resolved yet, so Juryvine is keeping the page conservative until a reliable court match lands.
The newest docket activity we have is a order dated May 11, 2026.
Party extraction has not produced a reliable plaintiff/defendant graph yet, so no speculative names are shown.
No independent press coverage is attached yet; this page is currently docket-led rather than media-led.
The Story So Far
Arnulfo Fagot-Maximo filed a notice of appeal on January 29, 2025, challenging the court's order numbered 472. The appeal signals that Fagot-Maximo disputes a ruling made in the underlying case, though the specific court and docket number remain undisclosed. No judge has been assigned to oversee the appeal at this stage.
The filing included Exhibit A and an envelope, suggesting formal submission of supporting documents. The case remains active but lacks public details about the original order or the issues in dispute.
Since the appeal was filed, the court issued a subsequent order on May 11, 2026. The content of that order has not been detailed in the public record. The absence of a judge assignment and limited docket information complicate tracking the procedural posture.
The appeal likely challenges a dispositive or significant interlocutory order given the formal notice and attachments.
Without further filings or rulings, the case stands at an early appellate stage. The parties await assignment of a panel or judge to review the appeal. The court’s May 2026 order could reflect procedural steps such as briefing schedules, motions, or case management directives.
The lack of clarity about the underlying dispute means the appeal’s legal and factual context remains opaque.
Observers should watch for the appointment of an appellate judge or panel and the issuance of a briefing schedule. Those developments will clarify the timeline and focus of the appeal. Subsequent filings may reveal the grounds for challenging order 472 and the broader stakes of the litigation.
Until then, the case remains a procedural placeholder with limited public information.
update What Changed This Week
receipt_long Source expand_more
NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 472 ORDER, filed by Arnulfo Fagot-Maximo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Envelope) (Dest) (Entered: 01/29/2025)
Juryvine summaries are generated from court records. Expand "Source" on any row to see the underlying filing.
Case Timeline
1 eventNOTICE OF APPEAL as to 472 ORDER, filed by Arnulfo Fagot-Maximo. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Envelope) (Dest) (Entered: 01/29/2025)
The court issued an order.
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more
Sources tracked
0 outlets · 0 articles
Timeline events
1 record on file
Last updated
12 hours, 5 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.