Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v Jacobs, et al
| Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation |
| Carolyn Jacobs and Duane Jacobs |
| 8:2011cv00229 |
| June 24, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
| 8 Omaha Office |
| Thomas D. Thalken |
| Negotiable Instrument |
| 12 U.S.C. ยง 1819 Default of Promissory Note |
| 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
30
ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED: The parties' Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice (Filing No. 29 ) is approved. The above captioned action is dismissed with prejudice. Each party will bear its own costs, complete record waived. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (TCL )
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has a statutory exemption from federal court filing fees. Therefore, the $350.00 filing fee shall be refunded to the law firm initiating this lawsuit on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (JLS, )
|
|
Filing
11
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Consolidation (filing 7 ) will be held in abeyance until the Court issues a ruling on the motion to dismiss (filing 30 , Case No. 8:11CV106) pending in Duane Jacobs, et al. v. PT Holdings, Inc, et al., Case No. 8:11CV106 (D. Neb. 2011). Ordered by Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett. (TCL )
|
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 Nebraska 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.
