Mark Potter v. Hunt and Henriques, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Central District Mark Potter v. Hunt and Henriques, Inc.

Mark Potter v. Hunt and Henriques, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Mark Potter
Defendant:	Hunt and Henriques, Inc.
Case Number:	8:2017cv00436
Filed:	March 13, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge:	Cormac J. Carney
Presiding Judge:	Jay C. Gandhi
Nature of Suit:	Consumer Credit

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
June 2, 2017	Filing 13 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Cormac J. Carney. The Court, on its own motion, hereby ORDERS plaintiff, to show cause in writing no later than June 12, 2017, why this action should not be dism issed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiffs, the Court will consider the filing of one of the following, as an appropriate response to this OSC, on or before the above date: (see document for details). (dro)
May 16, 2017	Filing 9 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Cormac J. Carney. The Court, on its own motion, hereby ORDERS plaintiff's counsel, to show cause in writing no later than May 19, 2017, why this action shou ld not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff, the Court will consider the filing of one of the following, as an appropriate response to this OSC, on or before the above date: (see document for details). (dro)

Date Filed

Document Text

June 2, 2017

Filing 13 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Cormac J. Carney. The Court, on its own motion, hereby ORDERS plaintiff, to show cause in writing no later than June 12, 2017, why this action should not be dism issed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiffs, the Court will consider the filing of one of the following, as an appropriate response to this OSC, on or before the above date: (see document for details). (dro)

May 16, 2017

Filing 9 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF PROSECUTION by Judge Cormac J. Carney. The Court, on its own motion, hereby ORDERS plaintiff's counsel, to show cause in writing no later than May 19, 2017, why this action shou ld not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. As an alternative to a written response by plaintiff, the Court will consider the filing of one of the following, as an appropriate response to this OSC, on or before the above date: (see document for details). (dro)

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

Search for this case: Mark Potter v. Hunt and Henriques, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Hunt and Henriques, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Mark Potter
Represented By:	Michael Anthony Jones
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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?