Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Defendant: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Plaintiff: Teri Smith
Case Number: 0:2013cv00439
Filed: February 25, 2013
Court: Minnesota District Court
County: Dakota
Referring Judge: Tony N. Leung
Presiding Judge: Susan Richard Nelson
Nature of Suit: Real Property: Other

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
October 21, 2013 17 Opinion or Order of the Court MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: 1. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 4] is GRANTED; and 2. Plaintiff's Complaint [Doc. No. 1] is DISMISSED with prejudice (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 10/21/13. (LPH)

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 Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Represented By: Elizabeth Ann Walker
Represented By: D Charles Macdonald
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Teri Smith
Represented By: Michael J Wang
Represented By: Jonathan L R Drewes
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 [ 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 were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.