Rentz v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA
Plaintiff: James E. Rentz
Defendant: JP Morgan Chase Bank NA
Case Number: 5:2016cv01645
Filed: October 6, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
Office: Northeastern Office
County: Limestone
Presiding Judge: Harwell G Davis
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331
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
April 13, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 23 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE that the defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and all of plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED with prejudice; costs are taxed to plaintiff as more fully set out in order. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 4/13/2017. (AHI)
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 Alabama Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Rentz v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: James E. Rentz
Represented By: Earl E Cloud, Jr
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: JP Morgan Chase Bank NA
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?