2:26-cv-01651 Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.243.208.249
Extension of Time to File Document ( 13
Ramos Ramirez v. Baltasar et al, docket number 26-cv-01651 in the Central District of California, has been reassigned to a different judge. This procedural change may affect case management and scheduling but does not alter the underlying claims or defenses.
Latest development
Order · April 21, 2026
The court issued an order.
description View filingCourt
C.D. Cal.
Central District of California · 9th Circuit · CA
Docket
Not captured
Civil
Stage
Active litigation
Active
Filed
Date unavailable
Not in the available feed
Latest Filing
1:26-cv-01651 BYERS et al v. FENWICK & WEST LLP et al
Other · May 13, 2026
Coverage
6 articles
6 sources tracked
Participants
4 Defendants, 3 Plaintiffs, 1 Related Organization
11 linked entities
Judge
Not assigned in feed
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 13, 2026.
The visible party/entity graph currently includes PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES LAND VIII LLC, Farber Bag & Supply Company, FENWICK & WEST LLP and others.
Press monitoring has found 6 related articles from 6 distinct sources.
Ramos Ramirez v. Baltasar et al is a civil case with a current docket number of 26-cv-01651. The case involves an Order Reassigning Case, which indicates that the case has been transferred to a different judge or court.
The court issued an order on April 21, 2026, but the details of the order are not yet clear. The case is currently active, but a judge has not yet been assigned. The transfer of the case suggests that the original judge may have recused themselves or that the case requires specialized knowledge or expertise.
The next step in the case will be the assignment of a new judge, who will review the case and determine the next course of action. The court's order on April 21, 2026, is likely to be a key document in understanding the reasoning behind the reassignment of the case.
The case is currently in a state of flux, and it is unclear what the long-term implications of the reassignment will be. The court's decision to reassign the case may be a response to a conflict of interest or a need for specialized knowledge.
The case will likely continue to be closely watched as the new judge takes on the case and determines the next steps. The court's order on April 21, 2026, is a significant development in the case, and it will be important to monitor the case for any further updates.
The reassignment of the case is a common occurrence in federal court, but it can still have significant implications for the parties involved. The case will likely continue to be active in the coming weeks and months as the new judge reviews the case and determines the next course of action.
Central District of California (C.D. Cal.) is a federal district court in the 9th Circuit, CA.
The case Ramos Ramirez v. Baltasar was reassigned to a new judge in the Central District of California under docket number 1:26-cv-01651. This reassignment signals a change in judicial oversight, which could affect the case's management and scheduling. Juryvine is monitoring the case for further developments and will update as more filings or rulings emerge.
The court granted a 14-day extension to file a document in the case Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.243.208.249. This extension was requested by the plaintiff, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC. The extension will allow the plaintiff more time to file the document.
The court has received the SSA Administrative Record in the case of Jimenez v. Bisignano, which is a separate case from Ramos Ramirez v. Baltasar et al. This record is likely being shared as part of the discovery process in the Ramos Ramirez case. The significance of this record is unclear without more context.
An Amended Complaint was filed.
The court allowed a crossclaim to proceed in the case of Ramos Ramirez v. Baltasar et al, referencing the docket number 3:26-cv-01651 EVANS v. PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES LAND VIII LLC et al. This means that the crossclaimant can now move forward with their claim against the defendants. The crossclaim is likely related to the original case.
The defendant filed their Answer to the Complaint.
The court issued an order.
Extension of Time to File Document ( 13
Amended Complaint ( 18
Crossclaim ( 4
Answer to Complaint ( 12
Order Reassigning Case ( 3
Sources tracked
6 outlets · 6 articles
Timeline events
7 records on file
Last updated
2 days, 17 hours 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.