MURPHY v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. et al
| BRIAN D. MURPHY |
| BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, N.A., ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-11, MCCABE, WEISBERG & CONWAY, P.C., TERRANCE J. MCCABE, MARC S. WEISBERG, EDWARD D. CONWAY, QBE INSURANCE CORPORATION and QBE FIRST INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. |
| 2:2013cv05719 |
| September 30, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Philadelphia Office |
| Indiana |
| R. BARCLAY SURRICK |
| Other Statutes: Racketeer/Corrupt Organization |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act |
| Plaintiff |
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
158
ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT I OF PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT IS DENIED. DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS II, III, AND IV OF PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT ARE HEREBY DENIED DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS II, III, IV, V, AND VI OF PLAINTIFFS AMENDED COMPLAINT IS GRANTED. ALL CLAIMS AGAINST THESE DEFENDANTS ARE DISMISSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 3/14/2016. 3/15/2016 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED AND FAXED BY CHAMBERS.(sg, )
|
|
Filing
91
ORDERED THAT THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 41 AND 42 ) ARE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 11/17/2014. 11/19/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED AND FAXED BY CHAMBERS.(sg, )
|
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 Pennsylvania 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.
