Advocates for Individuals With Disabilities LLC et al v. MidFirst Bank
Plaintiff: Advocates for Individuals With Disabilities LLC and David Ritzenthaler
Defendant: MidFirst Bank
Case Number: 2:2016cv01969
Filed: June 17, 2016
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office: Phoenix Division Office
County: Maricopa
Presiding Judge: Neil V Wake
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
July 24, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 116 ORDER: Defendants Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Sanctions 51 is granted in the amount of $31,473.50. The Clerk of Court enter judgment in favor of Defendant MidFirst Bank (1) against Peter Strojnik in the amount of $31,473. 50 plus interest at the federal rate of 2.42% per annum from the date of judgment until paid, of which $13,112.00 is also the joint and several obligation of Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities, LLC, and David Ritzenthaler, and ( 2) against Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities, LLC, and David Ritzenthaler, jointly and severally with Peter Strojnik, in the amount of $13,112.00 plus interest at the federal rate of 2.42% per annum from the date of judgment un til paid. Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Clerk of Court's Denial of Costs 64 is granted and costs are taxed against Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities, LLC, and David Ritzenthaler in favor of Defendant MidFirst Ba nk in the amount of $686.95. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following motions are denied: (1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal 71 ; (2) Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and Relief from Judgment 72 ; (3) State of Arizona's Motion to Intervene 87 ; and (4) Defendant's Request for Expedited Ruling 90 . This case remains terminated. Signed by Senior Judge Neil V Wake on 7/24/2018. (REK)
September 5, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 49 ORDER denying 24 Motion to Remand to State Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment dismissing this action and all claims therein for lack of standing. The Clerk shall terminate this case. (See document for further details). Signed by Senior Judge Neil V Wake on 9/1/17. (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: Advocates for Individuals With Disabilities LLC et al v. MidFirst Bank
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Advocates for Individuals With Disabilities LLC
Represented By: Peter Strojnik
Represented By: Fabian Zazueta
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 ]
Plaintiff: David Ritzenthaler
Represented By: Peter Strojnik
Represented By: Fabian Zazueta
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: MidFirst Bank
Represented By: John Alan Doran
Represented By: Matthew Albert Hesketh
Represented By: Lori Wright Keffer
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?