CHALLMAN v. HOVG, LLC

CHALLMAN v. HOVG, LLC

Plaintiff:	MICHAEL CHALLMAN
Defendant:	HOVG, LLC
Case Number:	1:2013cv00699
Filed:	April 26, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office:	Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge:	Tim A. Baker
Presiding Judge:	Jane Magnus-Stinson
Nature of Suit:	Consumer Credit
Cause of Action:	15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
June 21, 2013	Filing 13 ORDER - For the reasons contained herein, the Court DENIES Mr. Challman's Verified Application for Entry of Default from Clerk, [dkt. 7 ]. The Court notes that HOVG's request for an extension of time, which is technically a motion, wa s contained in its response to Mr. Challman's Application. [Dkt. 10 at 2.] This practice violates Local Rule 7-1(a), which provides that "[m]otions must be filed separately, but alternative motions may be filed in a single paper if each is named in the title. A motion must not be contained within a brief, response, or reply to a previously filed motion, unless ordered by the court." The Court excuses HOVG's misstep, GRANTS the request for an extension to June 19, 2013, and DIRECTS the Clerk to docket HOVG's Answer to Complaint Seeking Damages for Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (currently docketed as an exhibit to its response to the Application [dkt. 12]) as HOVG's Answer. However, the Court expects counsel to comply with the Local Rules going forward Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/21/2013. (JKS)

Date Filed

Document Text

June 21, 2013

Filing 13 ORDER - For the reasons contained herein, the Court DENIES Mr. Challman's Verified Application for Entry of Default from Clerk, [dkt. 7 ]. The Court notes that HOVG's request for an extension of time, which is technically a motion, wa s contained in its response to Mr. Challman's Application. [Dkt. 10 at 2.] This practice violates Local Rule 7-1(a), which provides that "[m]otions must be filed separately, but alternative motions may be filed in a single paper if each is named in the title. A motion must not be contained within a brief, response, or reply to a previously filed motion, unless ordered by the court." The Court excuses HOVG's misstep, GRANTS the request for an extension to June 19, 2013, and DIRECTS the Clerk to docket HOVG's Answer to Complaint Seeking Damages for Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (currently docketed as an exhibit to its response to the Application [dkt. 12]) as HOVG's Answer. However, the Court expects counsel to comply with the Local Rules going forward Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/21/2013. (JKS)

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 Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: CHALLMAN v. HOVG, LLC
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: MICHAEL CHALLMAN
Represented By:	John Thomas Steinkamp
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: HOVG, 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 ]

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?