Pike v. Procollect, Inc.
| Sandra Pike |
| Procollect, Inc. |
| 1:2020cv00374 |
| July 28, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama |
| William E Cassady |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 31, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Settlement by Sandra Pike (Walker, Michael) |
Filing 10
ENDORSED ORDER granting #9 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, adjudged and decreed that counselor James Joshua Parr, as a member in good standing of the Bar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, who has complied with the rules of this Court, be and is hereby admitted pro hac vice to serve the interests of justice in the above entitled cause. Signed by Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady on 8/28/20. (Cassady, William)
|
| Filing 9 MOTION and APPLICATION for James J Parr to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney affirms that a certificate of good standing that complies with #S.D. Ala. GenLR 83.3(d) is attached. ( Filing fee $ 75, Receipt number AALSDC-2668860, Online Credit Card Payment) filed by Sandra Pike. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing - State of Illinois, #2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing - NDIL) (Parr, James) |
|
Filing 8
PRELIMINARY SCHEDULING ORDER entered. Rule 26 Meeting Report due by 10/8/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady on 8/25/2020. (eec)
|
| Filing 7 Document endorsed NOTED by Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady: Corporate Disclosure Statement #5 filed by Procollect, Inc. (Cassady, William) |
| Filing 6 Procollect ANSWER to #1 Complaint, of Sandra Pike by Procollect, Inc.. (Yearout, Jason) |
| Filing 5 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Defendant Procollect, Inc.. (Yearout, Jason) |
| Filing 4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Sandra Pike. Procollect, Inc. served on 8/3/2020, answer due 8/24/2020 (Walker, Michael) |
| Filing 3 Notice of Assignment to Magistrate Judge for trial. (srr) |
| Filing 2 Summons Issued as to Procollect, Inc.. Note to Counsel: The Summons have been issued. Please print copies necessary for service. (srr) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Procollect, Inc. ( Filing fee $400 receipt number AALSDC-2651109, Online Credit Card Payment), filed by Sandra Pike. 90 day Rule 4m deadline set for 10/26/2020. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Proposed Summons) (Walker, Michael) |
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 Southern 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
| Search for this case: Pike v. Procollect, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Sandra Pike | |
| Represented By: | Michael Brandon Walker |
| Represented By: | James J. Parr |
| 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: Procollect, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Jason L. Yearout |
| 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.
