Thompson et al v. JP Morgan Chase Custody Services, Inc. et al
| Katherine D. Thompson and Harold L. Thompson |
| JP Morgan Chase Custody Services, Inc., JP Morgan Chase and Company, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Lynn Dowdy and Kathy Lewis |
| 5:2009cv00127 |
| April 10, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Civil Rights: Other Office |
| Jessamine |
| Jennifer B Coffman |
| Plaintiff |
| Federal Question |
| 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act |
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
27
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: It is ordered that the 14 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to the Thompsons' claims for violation of 42 USC 1981 and for slander against Chase Bank and Lynn Dowdy. It is further ordered that Chase Bank 9;s 14 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to the Thompsons' claims against all dfts under KRS 344.370 and 446.070 and 42 USC 1983. Court also grants summary judgment in favor of Kathy Lewis, JP Morgan Chase Custody Services, Inc., and J P Morgan Chase and Company on all claims against them. Those three dfts are DISMISSED with prejudice. It is ordered that the parties shall submit, within 14 days of the date of this order, a joint proposed schedule for the remainder of this action. Signed by Judge Jennifer B Coffman on 3/28/2011. (SCD)cc: COR
|
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 Kentucky Eastern 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.
