BLACKFORD v. CHASE BANK
Plaintiff: ROBERT CLARK BLACKFORD
Defendant: CHASE BANK
Case Number: 1:2014cv01717
Filed: October 21, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Office: Indianapolis Office
Presiding Judge: Mark J. Dinsmore
Presiding Judge: Jane Magnus-Stinson
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Fraud
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
November 10, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 56 ORDER. The Court GRANTS Chase's Motion to Dismiss. [Filing No. 38.] Mr. Blackford's racketeering claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (Count Two) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The remainder of Mr. Blackford's claims are DISMISSED for lac k of jurisdiction. The Court notes that this Order appears to moot the issues raised in Chase's Motion to Compel Discovery. [Filing No. 52.] Chase must advise the Court within 7 days of this Order whether it intends to pursue its fees and cos ts in connection with the Motion to Compel Discovery, as outlined in the Court's November 5, 2015 Order granting the motion, [Filing No. 54]. The Court will enter judgment after the fees and costs issue has been withdrawn by Chase, or resolved. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 11/10/2015. (BGT)
April 9, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER. The Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer, and conduct whatever investigation necessary, to determine whether this Court has diversity jurisdiction. If the parties agree that diversity jurisdiction is proper, they shall file a joint jurisdictional statement by April 22, 2015 setting forth the basis for each of their citizenships and whether they agree that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. If the parties cannot agree on their re spective citizenships or the amount in controversy, any party who disagrees shall file a separate jurisdictional statement by April 22, 2015 setting forth its views on those issues. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/9/2015. Copy sent to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. (BGT)
March 20, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER. The Court DISCHARGES its Order to Show Cause, and ORDERS Mr. Blackford to file an Amended Complaint by April 3, 2015, which properly sets forth the basis for this Court's diversity jurisdiction - including Mr. Blackford's citizens hip, Chase's citizenship, and the amount in controversy as detailed above. Mr. Blackford must also serve the Amended Complaint on Chase, or secure a waiver of service from Chase, as soon as practicable after the Amended Complaint is filed. Should Chase dispute the sufficiency of the amount in controversy it must raise that issue at the earliest opportunity. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/20/2015. Copy sent to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. (BGT)
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: BLACKFORD v. CHASE BANK
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: ROBERT CLARK BLACKFORD
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: CHASE BANK
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?