Neal v. Neal et al
| Richard Leland Neal |
| B Marc Neal, Michael Kenneth Neal and Richard Wayne Neal |
| 3:2016cv08291 |
| December 5, 2016 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Prescott Division Office |
| Mohave |
| Douglas L Rayes |
| Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 1962 |
| Plaintiff |
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
92
ORDER denying Defendants' 89 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 10/24/2018. (MMO)
|
|
Filing
87
ORDER - Defendants' 38 motion to dismiss is GRANTED as stated herein. Plaintiff's 43 motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is DENIED because the proposed amendments are futile. Defendant's 60 motion to strike is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff's 84 motion for leave to file a second motion for default judgment is DENIED as moot. Defendants may separately move for attorneys' fees in a manner that complies with LRCiv 54.2. The requirement that parties seek leave of Court before filing new motions is hereby dissolved. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate this case. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 3/13/2018. (ATD)
|
|
Filing
83
ORDER denying 78 Motion Regarding Judgment Creditor's Underlying Judgment as Being Void as a Matter of Law. FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot 61 Motion/Request for Oral Argument on Judgment Creditor Patricia Lewis' Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 12/1/2017. (MMO)
|
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.
