CLAYTON, et al v. SUNTRUST BANK, et al
Plaintiff: GAIL CLAYTON and THOMAS CLAYTON
Defendant: SUNTRUST BANK and ALAN E. FERGUSON
Case Number: 1:2011cv00818
Filed: September 30, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Office: NCMD Office
County: Alamance
Presiding Judge: UNASSIGNED
Presiding Judge: P. TREVOR SHARP
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1651
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
February 11, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 66 ORDER signed by JUDGE JAMES A. BEATY, JR on 02/11/2013, that Defendant SunTrust Bank's Motion to Remand and Renewed Motion to Remand [Doc. # 8 , # 35 ] are GRANTED, and this action is REMANDED to Alamance County, North Carolina, Superior Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a certified copy of this Order to the Alamance County Superior Court Clerk. FURTHER that Defendant SunTrust Bank's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 7 ] and Renewed Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 33 ] are DENIED AS MOOT. FURTHER that Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc. # 1 ], Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 22 ], Motion to Vacate [Doc. # 29 ], Motion for Cease and Desist Order [Doc. # 44 ], Request for Discovery [Doc. # 45 ], and Motion for Entry of Default [Doc. # 62 ] are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in light of the remand. (Taylor, Abby)
September 12, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 41 MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOI ELIZABETH PEAKE on 09/12/2012, that for the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that SunTrust Bank's Motion to Remand and Renewed M otion to Remand [Doc. # 8 , # 35 ] be granted and that this action be remanded to Alamance County, North Carolina, Superior Court. FURTHER that the Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 7 ] and Renewed Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 33 ] be denied as moot. < b>FURTHER that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Doc.# 1 ], Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 22 ], and Motion to Vacate [Doc. # 29 ] filed by Gail Clayton and Thomas Clayton be denied without prejudice in light of the remand. IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Hearing [Doc. # 23 ] is DENIED.(Taylor, Abby)
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 North Carolina Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: CLAYTON, et al v. SUNTRUST BANK, et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: GAIL CLAYTON
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: THOMAS CLAYTON
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: SUNTRUST BANK
Represented By: RACHEL SCOTT DECKER
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: ALAN E. FERGUSON
Represented By: RACHEL SCOTT DECKER
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?