Title Resources Guaranty Company v. Modus Vivendi, Inc. et al
| Title Resources Guaranty Company |
| Modus Vivendi, Inc., Michael Phan, Erik Savadyans, Concord Capital and Art Mazmanian |
| 2:2011cv03863 |
| May 4, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Gary A. Feess |
| Frederick F. Mumm |
| Fraud or Truth-In-Lending |
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
8
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge Gary A. Feess: Plaintiff is therefore hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff is hereby further ORDERED to advise the Court whether Bank of Am erica still retains liens on the properties at issue in this case, or whether Bank of America has reconveyed its deeds of trust. Plaintiff is further ORDERED to explain why it listed Bank of America as a party that may have a direct, pecuniary intere st in the outcome of this case on the Certification and Notice of Interested Parties. In particular, Plaintiff shouldidentify with specificity the potential direct, pecuniary interest that Bank of America may have in the outcome of this case. Plaintiff shall submit a response to this Order by no later than May 9, 2011. Failure to file a timely response to this Order shall be deemed consent to dismissal of this case. (rfi)
|
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.
