Mary Lou Vega v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, a Florida corporation et al
Plaintiff: Mary Lou Vega
Defendant: Ocwen Financial Corporation and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
Case Number: 2:2014cv04408
Filed: June 6, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Paul L. Abrams
Presiding Judge: Otis D. Wright
Nature of Suit: Racketeer/Corrupt Organization

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 28, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 71 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 64 . This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) . (lc). Modified on 5/28/2015 (lc).
March 24, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 62 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS 29 : The Court must dismiss the Complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Vega has ten days from the date of this order to file an amended complaint by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (lc). Modified on 3/24/2015 (lc).
February 25, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 61 ORDER STRIKING DOCKET ENTRIES 50 , 52 , 53 AND 58 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: On its own motion and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), the Court hereby WITHDRAWS the previously published Order entered December 1,2014. (ECF No. 5 0.) The Court believes that the December 1, 2014 Order was improperly decided, and it would like to revisit the legal issues in question. The Court hereby STRIKES Docket Entries 50, 52, 53, and 58. The Court vacates all deadlines in this matter and advises the parties to suspend discovery. A new order will issue. (lc). Modified on 2/25/2015 .(lc).
December 1, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 50 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS 29 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court denies the Motion as to all claims except the unjust-enrichment claim, which is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. Defendants shall answer the Complaint within 14 days of the date of this Order. (lc). Modified on 12/2/2014 .(lc).
October 24, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 41 *NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT* STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER 40 by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. *See attached Order.* (es)
September 8, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 26 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLCS MOTION FOR ASSIGNMENT 22 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II . (lc). Modified on 9/8/2014 (lc).
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Mary Lou Vega v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, a Florida corporation et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Ocwen Financial Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Mary Lou Vega
Represented By: Daniel Alberstone
Represented By: Michael I Miller
Represented By: Mark P Pifko
Represented By: Roland K Tellis
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?