Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation et al

Plaintiff: Irwin Union Bank, FSB
Defendant: Jay Dabba and Nisha Dabba
Receiver: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Case Number: 2:2010cv01146
Filed: May 27, 2010
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Maricopa
Presiding Judge: Mary H Murguia
Nature of Suit: Other Contract
Cause of Action: 12:1821
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
July 2, 2013 54 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER AND OPINION denying 49 Motion for Judgment and the court hereby determines that FDIC-R is entitled to a deficiency judgment against Defendants in the amount of $544,358.78, less the net proceeds from the trustee's sale of $6 1,011.40, plus taxable costs, plus any attorneys' fees which may be awarded. Wherefore, IT IS ORDERED: (1) FDIC-R shall move for attorneys' fees within 14 days from this order, and Defendants shall respond within 14 days from the motions fi ling. FDIC-R may reply within 7 days from the filing of Defendants' response. FDIC-R may apply to tax costs. (2) FDIC-R shall submit a proposed form of judgment within 14 days from this order (the amount of attorneys fees and costs to be left blank in the form). If Defendants find fault with the form of the proposed judgment, they shall respond stating their concerns within seven (7) days from the date the proposed form of judgment is filed. (See document for further details). Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 7/2/13. (LAD)
January 4, 2013 43 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER AND OPINION granting in part and denying in part 37 Motion for Summary Judgment as follows: FDIC-R may pursue this case to judgment without first conducting a foreclosure sale; FDIC-R shall recover principal of $424,505.57, late charg es of $3,051.84, and a processing/release fee of $95.00 from Defendants, but the amount of accrued interest must remain for future determination. If closing papers are not sooner filed, the parties shall file a joint status report advising the court what remains to be done before a trial date may be set and advising of a proposed schedule. (See document for full details). Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 1/4/13. (LAD)

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

Search for this case: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Receiver: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Represented By: Lawrence Robert Moon
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Irwin Union Bank, FSB
Represented By: Lawrence Robert Moon
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Jay Dabba
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Nisha Dabba
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 [ 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?