Paul Viriyapanthu et al v. Bank of America, N.A. et al
| Rochelle Abandor, Ruth Siriyanon, Sylvia Spada, Paul Viriyapanthu, Benjaporn Ellingson, Immigration West Law P.C., Alberto Jimenez, Sarosha Agatat and Debra B. |
| Victor Chavez, Sandy Luna, Noemi Marquez, DOES, Marisela Dangcil, Vanessa Kamau, Adam Luna, Joe Alfred Luna, Bank of America, N.A. and Stephen Bickford |
| 8:2012cv01285 |
| August 8, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| David O. Carter |
| Arthur Nakazato |
| Racketeer/Corrupt Organization |
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
111
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: granting 105 Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated ). (twdb)
|
|
Filing
99
PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: (See document for details.) IT IS SO ORDERED. (rla)
|
|
Filing
98
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: re PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO MODIFY ORDER 96 : (See document for details.) Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application and ORDERS the following: (1) To the extent that this Court's previous Minute Order of March 26, 2013, required that all subpoenaed documents be redacted, that Order is hereby AMENDED; (2) Unredacted records will instead be produced pursuant to Bank of America's subpoenas. Those records w ill be deemed classified and will be subject to Bank of America's Proposed Protective Order (Dkt. 97-2), which this Court hereby GRANTS; (3) Bank of America may not contact Plaintiffs' non-party clients in relation to this lawsuit or seek their deposition without leave of the Court. (rla)
|
|
Filing
5
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge David O. Carter: WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION: Court orders plaintiff (s) to show cause in writing no later than August 31, 2012, why this action should not be dismissed as t o all remaining defendants for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff(s), the Court will accept one of the following, if it is filed on or before the above date, as evidence that the matter is being prosecuted dilig ently: Defendant's answer to complaint or Plaintiff's Request for Entry of Default. No oral argument of this matter will be heard unless ordered by the Court. The Order will stand submitted upon the filing of a responsive pleading or motion on or before the date upon which a response by plaintiff(s) is due. Plaintiff is to serve notice of this Order on all parties who have not yet appeared in this action. (rla)
|
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.
