Stanford v. Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB et al
Plaintiff: Gregg A. Stanford
Defendant: Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Lasalle National Bank
Case Number: 2:2010cv01763
Filed: July 8, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of California
Office: Sacramento Office
County: Sacramento
Presiding Judge: Gregory G. Hollows
Presiding Judge: William B. Shubb
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
February 15, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 55 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 2/15/2012 ORDERING that defendants' 47 motion for, inter alia, monetary sanctions is GRANTED; and plaintiff shall personally pay the sum of $3,730.90 directly to defendants' counsel within 28 days; and RECOMMENDING that defendants' 47 motion for terminating sanctions be granted, and this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
February 3, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 52 STATUS (Pre-trial Scheduling) ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 2/2/12: All Dispositive Motions shall be filed by 8/22/2012; hearing on such motions shall be on 9/19/2012 at 9:30 a.m.. All discovery shall be completed by 7/13/ 2012. Designatio n of Expert Witnesses is due by 5/25/2012, and Supplemental disclosure and disclosure of any rebuttal experts shall be made by 6/15/2012. The Final Pretrial Conference is SET for 11/2/2012 at 11:00 AM, and the Jury Trial is SET for 12/10/2012 at 09:00 AM; both to be heard in Courtroom 6 (JAM) before Judge John A. Mendez. (Kastilahn, A)
January 6, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 46 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/6/12 ORDERING that Defendants' MOTION TO COMEPEL, filed 12/8/11 41 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's deposition is scheduled for 1/26/12, at 9:00 a.m. in accordance with the deposition notice previously issued. Plaintiff is warned that failure to appear at this deposition, and failure to produce requested documents, will result in further sanctions, including the dismissal of his case and the possibility of contempt charges. Sanctions are imposed against plaintiff personally in the amount of $1,357.70, which plaintiff shall pay directly to defendants' counsel within twenty-eight days of this order. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
December 12, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 42 STANDING 251 STIPULATED ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 12/12/2011. (Marciel, M)
February 23, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 36 ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 2/23/2011 GRANTING defendants' 27 Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint. (Marciel, M)
November 8, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 21 ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/5/10 ORDERING Motion to Dismiss first amended complaint 7 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs first claim for Wrongful Foreclosure is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Pltf has 20 days leave to amend this claim; the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs second claim for Breach of Written Contract is DENIED; The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs third claim for Fraud is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff has 20 days leave to amend this claim; the Motion to Dismiss Pltfs fourth claim for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE; the Motion to Dismiss Pltfs fifth claim for Negligence is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE; the Motion to Dismiss Plfs sixth claim for Quiet Title is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; pltf has 20 days leave to amend this claim; the Motion to Dismiss Pltfs seventh claim for Violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17200 is GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; pltf has 20 days leave to amend this claim.(Carlos, K)
August 12, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER of RECUSAL signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 8/11/10 ORDERING the clerk of the court reassign this case to another for all further proceedings. CASE REASSIGNED to US Judge John A. Mendez. The new case number shall be known as 2:10-cv-1763 JAM GGH. (Carlos, K)
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 Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Stanford v. Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB
Represented By: Chris C Chapman
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 ]
Defendant: Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC
Represented By: Chris C Chapman
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 ]
Defendant: Lasalle National Bank
Represented By: Chris C Chapman
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: Gregg A. Stanford
Represented By: William Laurence Dunbar
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?