Fealy v. Wells Fargo Bank

Defendant: Wells Fargo Bank
Plaintiff: Cheryl Fealy
Case Number: 2:2013cv02340
Filed: December 26, 2013
Court: Nevada District Court
Office: Las Vegas Office
Presiding Judge: Andrew P. Gordon
Referring Judge: Peggy A. Leen
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 31:3545 Action to Recovery Money
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
September 26, 2014 21 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Denying 9 Motion for Default Judgment, 13 Motion to Uphold Default Judgment, and 16 Motion to Uphold Default Judgment. Granting 10 Motion to Set Aside 8 Clerks Entry of Default. Denying 18 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 9/26/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

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

Search for this case: Fealy v. Wells Fargo Bank
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
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: Cheryl Fealy
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.