Saugstad v American Home Mortgage
| Osten E. Saugstad |
| American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc.;, UMOC Lending, Inc., Option One Mortgage Corp., Daniel Charles Brown and Sonja Windifred Gorman |
| 2:2009cv03516 |
| December 21, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| John A. Mendez |
| Kimberly J. Mueller |
| Negotiable Instrument |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1601 Truth in Lending |
| Both |
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
48
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 3/25/11 ORDERING that the MOTION TO DISMISS 46 is DENIED. The Court is DISMISSING this CASE for lack of jurisdiction. This CASE is DISMISSED without prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 9/23/2010 ORDERING that Defendant Sand Canyon Corporation f/k/a Option One Mortgage Corporation's 37 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ordered, within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, attorney Catherine King must either (1) submit a statement of good cause for her failure to comply with the local rules, or (2) pay a sanction in the amount of $250.00 to the Clerk of the Court. (Duong, D)
|
|
Filing
39
ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 7/29/10 GRANTING, with prejudice, Deft American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.'s 14 Motion to Dismiss. Accordingly, the motion to strike is moot. (Owen, K)
|
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.
