Has case 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS been dismissed, settled, or appealed?

1. What the documents you provided actually show

The items in your search results are copies and transcriptions of the original complaint and early docket materials for Case 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS — including PDFs and text captures of the complaint filed April 26, 2016 — hosted on archive sites and reposted by third parties (full complaint files: ^[4]; ^[5]; ^[6]; p1_s9). CourtListener pages in your results list the case and parties and show the docket as indexed, but those pages as provided here do not include a clear closing entry or order reflecting dismissal, settlement, or an appeal (CourtListener docket snapshots: ^[1]; ^[2]; ^[1]1).

2. What the sources explicitly do not show

None of the provided items include a final judgment, stipulated dismissal, settlement notice, minute order terminating the case, or a recorded notice of appeal. The archived PDFs and text files are the complaint and apparently an additional short filing (Document 5 appears in the archive set) but those items, as indexed in your results, do not establish a final case disposition (complaint and related docs: ^[4]; p1_s9). Therefore any definitive statement that the case was dismissed, settled, or appealed is not supported by the documents you supplied ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Why the absence of a disposition matters

Federal dockets commonly record case termination events (judgment, dismissal, notice of appeal). The CourtListener pages in your results show the case entry and metadata but — based on the snippets included here — they stop short of showing a terminating event or appellate filing (docket listings: ^[1]; ^[1]1). Without a termination entry, publicly archived complaint files cannot be taken as evidence that the case was resolved in any particular way ^{[4] [5]}.

4. Possible reasons you’re seeing only complaint copies

Online reposts and archives often preserve initial filings even when later docket activity exists elsewhere; several results are mirror sites or text conversions of those filings (archive.org, DailyKos, Yumpu, CyberPlayground: ^[5]; ^[9]; ^[10]; p1_s5). Third‑party hosts do not reliably mirror full, updated dockets, so the presence of the complaint across multiple sites is not surprising and does not indicate the ultimate status of the litigation ^{[4] [6]}.

5. What further, authoritative steps you should take

To confirm dismissal, settlement, or appeal you need to consult the official Central District of California electronic docket (CM/ECF) or an authoritative mirror that includes later docket entries and orders; CourtListener sometimes includes full docket items but the snippets in your results do not display a termination entry here (CourtListener listings: ^[1]; ^[1]0). The provided sources do not include that authoritative closing record, so they are insufficient to answer your original question definitively ^[3].

6. Competing interpretations and the safe conclusion

One possible reading of the available material is that the case existed and was filed as shown by multiple copies of the complaint ^{[4] [5] [6]}. An alternative — and equally supported by the supplied sources — is that the footage of documents you found reflects only initial filings that were preserved online while later docket activity was not captured by these mirrors ^{[7] [8]}. Because the supplied sources do not include a dispositive docket entry, the restrained, evidence‑based conclusion is: the provided records confirm filing but do not state whether the case was dismissed, settled, or appealed ^{[1] [3]}.

Limitations and transparency note: this analysis relies solely on the documents and links you provided; available sources here do not contain a final docket entry or appellate filing showing disposition, and I do not assert facts beyond those sources ^{[4] [7]}. If you want a definitive answer, obtain the Central District of California’s official docket record for 5:16‑cv‑00797‑DMG‑KS or a CourtListener/RECAP page that includes final docket entries.