Jack T. Noe et al v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation et al
| Carolyn D. Noe and Jack T. Noe |
| Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, SMR Financial Services, Inc., Sean M. Reynolds and DOES |
| 2:2008cv07140 |
| October 29, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Western Division - Los Angeles Office |
| Ventura |
| King |
| Olguin |
| Banks and Banking |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal |
| 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
185
JUDGMENT by Judge George H. King, Pursuant to our August 17, 2012 Order, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Jack T. Noe and Carolyn D. Noe's ("Plaintiffs") claims against Defendants SMR Financial Services, Inc. and Sean M. Reynolds are DISMISSED without prejudice. Related to: Minutes of In Chambers Order, 184 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (lw)
|
|
Filing
181
JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 54(b) by Judge George H. King: Pursuant to our July 2, 2012 and August 3, 2012 Orders, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs Jack T. Noe and Carolyn D. Noe's claims against Defendants Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. are DISMISSED with prejudice. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), we expressly determine that there is no just reason for delay, and we therefore direct entry of this judgment. (bm)
|
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 California Central 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.
