Katina v. Mortgage Electronic Registration, et al
| Tariq M. Katina |
| Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Citi Mortgage, Neighbor's Financial Corporation and CR Title Services Inc. |
| 2:2010cv02016 |
| July 28, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| John A. Mendez |
| Kendall J. Newman |
| Foreclosure |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Defendant |
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
ORDER and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/14/11 ORDERING the hearing on defendants' motion to strike, motion to dismiss, and motion to expunge the notice of pendency of action 5 , 6 , 10 , presen tly scheduled for 01/27/11 is vacated. Also, RECOMMENDING that Plaintiff's case be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The notice of pendency of action recorded by plaintiff on 07/02/10 at book number 2010072 page number 1047 in the official records of Sacramento County be expunged. The clerk of Court close this case and vacate all future dates in this case. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days.(Plummer, M)
|
|
Filing
25
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/6/2010 ORDERING that the hearing on Dfts' motions to 6 dismiss, 5 strike, and 10 expunge, is CONTINUED to 1/27/2011. Pltf shall file written oppositions to the three pending motions or a statement of non-opposition by 1/6/2011. The Dfts may file written replies to Pltf's oppositions, if any, by 1/20/2011. (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
15
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/7/2010 ORDERING on or before 11/5/2010, defendants CitiMortgage, Inc., CR Title Services, Inc., and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. shall file with the court, and serve on plaint iff, proof that they served all documents filed in this matter prior to 10/1/2010, on plaintiff in a manner consistent with this court's local rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff may, but is not required to, file a response to the defendants' submission on or before 11/19/2010, addressing whether he disputes that he was properly served and, if served, why he has failed to file a timely opposition to defendants' motions to strike and to dismiss. Plaintiff's response, if any, shall not exceed five pages in length using a 12-point size type font, excluding any relevant exhibits. (Matson, 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.
