Ramones et al v. Wachovia Mortgage Services et al
| Elmer Ramones and Marie Paz Valdez |
| Wachovia Mortgage Services, Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation and Imeda Factora |
| 2:2010cv03450 |
| December 23, 2010 |
| U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Gregory G. Hollows |
| Frank C. Damrell |
| Foreclosure |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Plaintiff |
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
22
ORDER for REMAND to Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 4/5/2011. Copy of Remand Order sent to San Joaquin County Superior Court. (Marciel, M)
|
|
Filing
12
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr., on 2/28/11. The hearing on Defendant Wachovia Mortgage's 6 Motion to Dismiss and 8 Motion to Strike is CONT'D to 3/25/2011 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 2 (FCD) before Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr.. Pltfs shall file and serve opposition or non-opposition no later than 3/11/11; and defendant may file and serve response on or before 3/18/11. Pltfs' counsel is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be sanctioned in the amount of $150.00 for failing to file an opposition or notice of non-opposition to defendant's motion; and pltfs' counsel shall file his response to the Order to Show Cause on or before 3/11/11. (Kastilahn, A)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
