Lending Company Incorporated v. Craythorn et al
| Lending Company Incorporated |
| John Craythorn |
| Unknown Johnson, R J Reynolds, Unknown Reynolds, Mark Nickel, Unknown Nickel and Dave Johnson |
| John Craythorn |
| John Craythorn |
| Lending Company Incorporated |
| 2:2012cv01205 |
| June 6, 2012 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Maricopa |
| Neil V Wake |
| Assault, Libel, and Slander |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Both |
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
27
ORDER: Craythorn's 23 Motion for Leave to Amend Craythorn's First Amended Verified Answer and Counterclaim is granted. FURTHER ORDERED that The Lending Company's 21 Rule 12(B)(1) Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim for Lack of Subject M atter Jurisdiction is denied without prejudice to the determination on the merits of the jurisdictional issue on the motion to remand. FURTHER ORDERED that, by 08/06/12, The Lending Company either withdraw its 18 Motion to Remand to State Court for Lack of Jurisdiction or file a reply to the arguments and evidence presented in support of diversity jurisdiction raised in Craythorn's 23 response to The Lending Company's motion to remand. If The Lending Company elects to file a reply, Craythorn is given leave to file a surreply by 08/13/12. See order for details. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 7/26/12. (NKS)
|
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 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.
