Are there public records (docket entries, PACER filings, or news reports) documenting post-judgment motions, enforcement actions, or class action follow-ups tied to Case 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS?

1. What the available public mirrors actually contain

Multiple online archives and document mirrors host the initial complaint and related early filings for Case 5:16‑cv‑00797‑DMG‑KS: an uploaded complaint appears on FactCheck/other mirrors (a PDF copy of “Document 1”) and is reproduced on Archive.org and Yumpu, showing the April 26, 2016 complaint pages ^{[1] [2] [4]}, and an additional filings file labeled Document 5 is preserved on Archive.org ^{[5] [6]}.

2. The docket index exists but is thin in these sources

A publicly accessible docket index for “Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump, 5:16‑cv‑00797” is available through CourtListener’s docket page, which confirms the case number and provides an entry point for records but in the capture surfaced by these sources does not itself enumerate post‑judgment enforcement or class‑action follow‑on filings ^[3].

3. No explicit post‑judgment or enforcement filings located in the collected snapshots

Among the collected mirrors, the documents are primarily the initial complaint and some early procedural pages (such as the “urgent motion requesting continuance” referenced on a Slideshare capture), but none of the supplied links or archives in this dataset include filings that are clearly labeled as post‑judgment motions, enforcement actions, or class‑action follow‑ups tied to the case after a disposition ^{[7] [8]}.

4. Multiple third‑party repostings confirm circulation but not subsequent docket activity

The same complaint text and PDFs are reposted across sites (Archive.org, PDFCoffee, Scribd, CyberPlayground), which demonstrates wide circulation of the pleading itself but does not equate to evidence of later court actions; these repostings mirror Document 1 and related early filings rather than later enforcement or class remedy records ^{[2] [9] [10] [11]}.

5. Where the reporting and the public record diverge — and why that matters

Reporting and social‑media recirculation have focused on the sensational allegations in the complaint files that are archived ^{[8] [10]}, but the dataset provided lacks a comprehensive PACER export or an explicit final judgment and subsequent motions; therefore, while the complaint and docket stub are public, these sources do not themselves document post‑judgment enforcement or class‑action follow through ^{[1] [3]}.

6. Limitations of this review and next steps for verification

This analysis is limited to the provided archives, mirrors, and the CourtListener docket snapshot; it cannot assert whether PACER, the Central District of California’s clerk’s office records, or an exhaustive PACER docket export would contain later post‑judgment motions, enforcement actions, or class‑action follow‑ups because those searches were not among the supplied sources ^{[3] [5]}. To conclusively determine downstream filings, a PACER docket report or a direct clerk’s office inquiry would be necessary.

7. Bottom line — what can be stated with confidence

With the material furnished for this review, the public record that is visible consists of the initial complaint and archived early filings (Document 1 and related copies) and a docket landing page, but no post‑judgment motions, enforcement actions, or class action follow‑up pleadings tied to Case 5:16‑cv‑00797‑DMG‑KS are documented in these sources; the absence in these mirrors should not be interpreted as definitive proof they never existed without a PACER/clerk search ^{[1] [2] [3]}.