Stejic v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|October 20, 2010
ORDER that Defendants' motions to dismiss (Docs. 48 , 51 , 54 ) are granted. The consumer fraud claim asserted in count five of the complaint is dismissed, and the corresponding request for injunctive relief in count six is denied. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10/20/10.(ESL)
|July 22, 2010
ORDER granting/denying in parte Motion to Remand Certain Claims (Doc. #457, in MDL-2119). ORDERED that with respect to Stejic (CV 10-51-PHX-JAT), claim 1 (wrongful foreclosure), claim 2 (breach of contract), claim 3 (breach of the covenant of good fa ith and fair dealing), claim 4 (fraud), and part of claim 6 (injunctive relief) remain with the undersigned as part of the MDL; claim 5 (consumer fraud act), and part of claim 6 (injunctive relief) are remanded to Judge Campbell; to accomplish the bi furcation of this case within this district, the Clerk of the Court is directed to bifurcate Stejic into two cases; the Clerk of the Court shall draw and assign a new Phoenix case number to the portion of the Stejic case that is remaining with the un dersigned and the Clerk of the Court shall consolidate that case number into the MDL as a member case. The Clerk of the Court shall transfer the original Stejic case number back to Judge Campbell...See Order for Complete Details. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 7/22/10. (Original Order filed in MDL-2119 (Doc. 964)) (MAP)
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 Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?