California Bank & Trust v Shilo Inn, Twin Falls, LLC et al
| California Bank & Trust |
| Shilo Inn and Mark S. Hemstreet |
| 1:2012cv00143 |
| March 19, 2012 |
| US District Court for the District of Idaho |
| Boise - Southern Office |
| Twin Falls - Southern |
| Candy W Dale |
| Real Property: Foreclosure |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Other Contract |
| Defendant |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
28
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER The Court finds plaintiff is entitled to an order appointing a receiver; however, plaintiff is ordered to provide defendant with a payoff number within seven days of today. Defendant to pay in full within 14 days therea fter. If the amount is not paid in full by the 21st day from today, the Court will sign an order appointing a receiver. If the amount is paid in full, the issue is moot. Further, the parties have 21 days from today within which to consent to magistra te judge jurisdiction. If the Court neither receives consent nor a request for reassignment, this matter will be automatically reassigned to a district judge for prompt consideration and entry of an order. Plaintiff shall submit a proposed order consistent with the Court's decision and order herein.. Signed by Judge Candy W Dale. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jm)
|
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 Idaho District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
