OneWest Bank, N.A. v. Howard et al
| OneWest Bank, N.A. |
| John Doe, Janet Howard, New York City Environmental Control Board and PNC Bank, National Association |
| 1:2014cv07470 |
| December 23, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Steven M. Gold |
| Sandra L. Townes |
| Real Property: Foreclosure |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Contract Default |
| 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
64
ORDER granting plaintiff's 58 motion for summary judgment against defendant Howard; granting plaintiff's motion for default judgment against PNC and ECB; and granting plaintiff's motion to amend the case caption. In order to effectua te foreclosure and sale, Plaintiff is directed to submit, on or before July 13, 2018, (i) affidavits and supporting documentation sufficient for the Court to determine the amount due under the Note and (ii) a revised proposed judgment of foreclosure and sale. Any defendant who wishes to oppose these submissions may do so within fifteen (15) days of the date that the submissions are filed. Ordered by Judge I. Leo Glasser on 6/15/2018. (O'Brien, Luke)
|
|
Filing
55
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice to re-filing a motion which cures the defects identified herein. That motion shall be filed on or before November 28, 2016, and should: 1. Annex to the Not ice of Motion a properly captioned Statement of Material Facts which complies with the dictates of Local Civil Rule 56.1; 2. Provide some legal analysis with respect to whether the Note is a negotiable instrument, as defined in N.Y. U.C.C. § 1-2 01(21); 3. Ensure that the stamped indorsements on the original Note are entirely legible in the photocopies provided to the Court; 4. Provide a fuller explanation regarding the various indorsements, including some explanation of how the FDIC became involved, when the indorsements to IndyMac were made, and what authorized Plaintiff's employees to sign documents on behalf of the FDIC and MERS; and 5. Provide evidence in admissible form that Plaintiff possessed the Note at the time it commen ced this action. The Court defers decision with respect to Plaintiff's remaining motions. The Court notes, however, that Plaintiff does not need a Court order to dismiss its claims against the Doe defendant. Plaintiff can voluntarily dismiss this defendant by filing a notice of dismissal. Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 10/26/2016. (Brucella, Michelle)
|
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 New York 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.
