Cindy Dupre v. Mountain West Financial Inc et al
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|July 10, 2014
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court hereby GRANTS defendants' motion to dismiss 66 , and Joinder 69 . Because the Court grants defendants' motion to dismiss, it denies defendants' motion to strike 67 as moot. It does not appear that further amendment will cure the deficiencies in plaintiff's current claims, the Court dismisses those claims with prejudice. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated) Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)
|September 19, 2013
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Supplement Pleadings 20 . In her motion, plaintiff seeks leave to file a supplemental pleading that cures the defects in her complain t and establishes that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff's motion to file a supplemental pleading is hereby GRANTED. As stated in this Court's previous order, the Court cannot consider plaintiff's pending Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 16 until plaintiff establishes that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Court Reporter: N/A. (gk)
|September 17, 2013
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: There does not appear to be a basis for the exercise of this Court's subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Due to this lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the court declines to consider plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order 16 . In light of the imminent foreclosure sale, and the fact that this Court does not have a basis for exercising subject matter jurisdiction over this case, it appears that this case could be refiled in San Bernardino County Superior Court. Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause on or before 9/30/2013, why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court Reporter: N/A. (gk)
|September 4, 2013
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED NOTICE OF LIS PENDENS LODGED 9/3/2013 by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court is in receipt of plaintiff's Proposed Notice of Lis Pendens filed 8/29/2013 7 . Plaintiff has not filed any proof of s ervice of the Proposed Notice of Lis Pendens; accordingly, defendants have not been properly served. Plaintiff's Proposed Notice of Lis Pendens is therefore denied without prejudice to being renewed with the appropriate showing that proper service has been made upon defendants. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)
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 California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?