King v. Real Time Resolutions Incorporated
Antoinette King |
Real Time Resolutions Incorporated |
2:2020cv00748 |
April 17, 2020 |
US District Court for the District of Arizona |
Michael T Liburdi |
Other Statutes: Consumer Credit |
15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on June 12, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 8 ORDER that the Clerk of Court shall, without further notice, dismiss this entire case on 8/12/2020, with prejudice, and shall enter judgment accordingly, unless prior thereto a party withdraws the Notice of Settlement (Doc. #7 ). IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that all pending deadlines in this case are vacated. Signed by Judge Michael T. Liburdi on 6/12/2020. (RMW) |
Filing 7 NOTICE of Settlement AS TO DEFENDANT REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS, INC. by Antoinette King. (Kent, Trinette) |
Filing 6 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Antoinette King: Proof of Service re: Summons, Complaint, Notice upon Real Time Resolutions, Inc. on 5/18/2020. (Kent, Trinette) |
Filing 5 Summons Issued as to Real Time Resolutions Incorporated. (LAD). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. |
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. (LAD) |
Filing 3 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970-18191696. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Michael T Liburdi. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV-20-00748-PHX-MTL. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (LAD) |
Filing 2 SUMMONS Submitted by Antoinette King. (Submitted by Trinette Kent) (LAD) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number 0970-18191696 filed by Antoinette King. (Submitted by Trinette Kent) (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: King v. Real Time Resolutions Incorporated | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Antoinette King | |
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 ] |
Defendant: Real Time Resolutions Incorporated | |
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.