Melnik v. Countrywide Financial Corporation et al
| Lyubov Melnik |
| Countrywide Financial Corporation, Recontrust Company, N.A. and Landsafe Title of California, Inc. |
| 2:2009cv02638 |
| September 21, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Edmund F. Brennan |
| John A. Mendez |
| None |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act |
| None |
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
27
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/3/2010, ORDERING that the 5/6/2010 status (pretrial scheduling) conference is VACATED; and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed pursuant to FRCP 41(b), based on pltf's failure to prosecute the action; dfts' 12 motion to dismiss and motion to strike be denied as moot; and the Clerk be directed to close this case. (Kastilahn, A)
|
|
Filing
24
ORDER and ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/5/10 ORDERING that the 2/17/10 hearing is VACATED and plaintiff show cause by 2/26/10 as to why sanctions should not be imposed; plaintiff's opposition to 11 Motion to Dismiss due by 2/26/10; defendant's reply due by 3/5/10. (Owen, K)
|
|
Filing
19
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/30/09 ORDERING that the December 3, 2009 order to show cause, 17 is discharged. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
17
[DISCHARGE] ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/3/09 ORDERING that the Defendants' motion to dismiss and strike plaintiff's first amended complaint, 12 is denied without prejudice, and the 12/1 6/09 hearing thereon is vacated; Defendants shall show cause, in writing, no later than 12/30/09, why this action should not be remanded to state court due to defendants' failure to file a copy of all of the pleadings, process and orders that we re served on them in the state action, and as a result, defendants' failure to establish that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action; Failure of defendants to file a response to the order to show cause will be deemed a statem ent of non-opposition to remand, and may result in a recommendation that this action be remanded to Placer County Superior Court; and on or before 1/6/10, plaintiff may file a reply to defendants' response to the order to show cause.(Becknal, R) Modified on 12/30/2009 (Becknal, R).
|
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 Eastern 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.
