General Electric Capital Corporation v. Rhino Business Systems, Inc.
| General Electric Capital Corporation |
| Rhino Business Systems, Inc. |
| 2:2016cv00029 |
| January 5, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Shasta |
| Craig M. Kellison |
| Kimberly J. Mueller |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
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
36
DEFAULT JUDGMENT against Rhino Business Systems, Inc. pursuant to 35 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/3/2017. (Michel, G.)
|
|
Filing
34
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 02/17/2017 RECOMMENDING that Plaintiff's 29 Motion for default judgment be granted; and Default judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $431,674.22. Referred to District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Jackson, T)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/22/16 ORDERING Plaintiff to SHOW CAUSE within fourteen days why this action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Alternatively, this order to show cause shall be discharged if, within fourteen days, Plaintiff amends the complaint to name additional parties or files a motion for default judgment before the assigned Magistrate Judge, or does both. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
22
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/10/16 GRANTING 7 GE Capital's application for a right to attach order and writ of attachment against Rhino in the amount of $477,527.23 against the sale proceeds of Rhino's assets to Morgan. (Jackson, T)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/13/16 ORDERING that (1) GE Capital's Motion to Expedite Discovery is granted and (2) A subpoena commanding Scott McFadden to appear for deposition may issue. (Becknal, R)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/4/2016 ORDERING GE Capital to provide supplemental case law to support its 7 Motion for Right to Attach Order, and specifically the argument that its description of the property to be attached is "reasonably adequate," within 7 days of this order. The supplemental filing shall identify cases only, by name and citation, without additional briefing or argument. (Jackson, T)
|
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
| Search for this case: General Electric Capital Corporation v. Rhino Business Systems, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: General Electric Capital Corporation | |
| Represented By: | Jonathan Rath Doolittle |
| 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: Rhino Business Systems, Inc. | |
| 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.
