Emmons v. Bank of America Corporation N.A. et al
| Charles Emmons |
| Bank of America, N.A., PRLAP, Inc., Ocwen Financial Corporation and Judith A Kuhlman |
| 4:2015cv00799 |
| October 14, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Missouri |
| Kansas City Office |
| Andrew |
| Fernando J. Gaitan |
| All Other Real Property |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
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
12
ORDER denying 8 defendants' Motion to Dismiss - plaintiff is directed to file an Amended Complaint providing additional factual details related to his claims on or before 9/19/16 in Case No. 15-cv-0799; and granting 4 defendants' motion to consolidate case and consolidating Case No. 13-1055 with Case No. 15-799. The Clerk of the Court shall enter this Order in each of the consolidated cases. Case No. 15-799 shall be the lead case and Case No. 13-1055 shall be the subordinate case. All future filings shall be made only in the lead case, and each filing shall clearly indicate the relevant case number. No filings will be permitted in the subordinate case. The parties are advised that consolidation does not merge the cases into a single action, and each will retain its separate character. However, the Court will enter a single scheduling order for both cases. Signed on 8/30/16 by District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda)
|
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 Missouri Western 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.
