Ingram v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation
Plaintiff: Michelle Ingram
Defendant: Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation
Case Number: 2:2019cv05355
Filed: October 9, 2019
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Presiding Judge: Neil V Wake
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:227
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on October 9, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
October 9, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER that motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(c) are discouraged if the defect can be cured by filing an amended pleading. Therefore, the parties must meet and confer prior to the filing of such motions to determine whether it can be avoided. FURTHER ORDERED if Defendant files a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c) and if Plaintiff contends any further amendment of her Complaint (Doc. #1 ) can cure any alleged deficiency, Plaintiff must submit, no later than the time she files a response to a motion to dismiss, a proposed amended complaint containing all further allegations Plaintiff could make. See order for details. Signed by Senior Judge Neil V. Wake on 10/9/19. (NKS)
October 9, 2019 Filing 5 Summons Issued as to Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation. (DLC). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document.
October 9, 2019 Filing 4 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP) and this case is subject to that pilot. The key features and deadlines are set forth in the attached Notice which includes General Order 17-08. Also attached is a checklist for use by the parties. All parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the General Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the General Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the attached documents (Notice to Parties, including General Order 17-08 and MIDP Checklist) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (DLC)
October 9, 2019 Filing 3 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-17501015. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Neil V Wake. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-19-5355-PHX-NVW. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (DLC)
October 9, 2019 Filing 2 SUMMONS Submitted by Michelle Ingram. (Kent, Trinette) (DLC)
October 9, 2019 Filing 1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number 0970-17501015 filed by Michelle Ingram. (Kent, Trinette) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(DLC)

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: Ingram v. Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation
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: Michelle Ingram
Represented By: Trinette G Kent
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?