Walker et al v. Rash Curtis & Associates
| Edward Walker and Susan Walker |
| Rash Curtis & Associates |
| 2:2010cv00106 |
| January 14, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| El Dorado |
| Morrison C. England |
| John F. Moulds |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act |
| 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
26
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 2/4/11 re 25 ORDERING that the 17 Judgment in this matter, entered on September 2, 2010 pursuant to an Offer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 be VACATED and that the case instead be DISMISSED with prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (Duong, D)
|
|
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 10/19/10: Defendant's Motion to Vacate the Judgment is DENIED. Plaintiffs' Motion for Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Costs is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees in the amount of $4,822.50, but are NOT entitled to reasonable costs under the FDCPA. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
17
Judgment is hereby entered in accordance with the offer of judgment, and notice of acceptance of offer by plaintiff, filed with the court on August 17, 2010. Offer of judgment for $2,001 plus attorney fees and costs to be determined by this court. CASE CLOSED. (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.
