Gates v. Superior Loan Servicing
| Tyrious Gates |
| Superior Loan Servicing |
| 3:2021cv06369 |
| August 18, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| William H Orrick |
| Real Property: Foreclosure |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 23, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 25 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William H. Orrick: Motion Hearing held on 10/13/2021 re #17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Counsel to file supplemental briefing/declaration within one week. FTR Time: 2:00 to 2:08. Plaintiff Attorney: Stratton Scott Barbee. Defendant Attorney: Kristi Wells. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/13/2021) |
| Filing 24 REPLY (re #17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) Supplemental Opposition filed bySuperior Loan Servicing. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(Weber, Edward) (Filed on 10/12/2021) |
| Filing 23 REPLY (re #17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) filed byTyrious Gates. (Barbee, Stratton) (Filed on 10/11/2021) |
| Filing 22 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re #17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) filed bySuperior Loan Servicing. (Attachments: #1 Ex. 1)(Weber, Edward) (Filed on 10/6/2021) |
Filing 21
ORDER ADJUSTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE - Deadlines reset as to #17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Response due by 10/6/2021. Reply due by 10/11/2021. Motion Hearing set for 10/13/2021 02:00 PM via Videoconference before Judge William H. Orrick. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/28/2021. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2021)
|
| Filing 20 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re #17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction ) Request for Continuance or Denial of Motion by Defendant and Respondent to Motion for Preliminary Injunction Due to Lack of Service of Motion filed bySuperior Loan Servicing. (Weber, Edward) (Filed on 9/28/2021) |
| Filing 19 NOTICE of Non-Opposition by Tyrious Gates (Barbee, Stratton) (Filed on 9/24/2021) Modified on 9/27/2021 (slhS, COURT STAFF). |
| Filing 18 CLERKS NOTICE SETTING ZOOM HEARING - The Motion Hearing set for 9/29/2021 02:00 PM will be held via Zoom webinar.Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at #https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/who General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadca sting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.Zoom Guidance and Setup: #https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/< /A<. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2021) |
| Filing 17 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Tyrious Gates. Motion Hearing set for 9/29/2021 02:00 PM in Oakland, - Videoconference Only before Judge William H. Orrick. Responses due by 9/22/2021. Replies due by 9/27/2021. (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 Exhibit E)(Barbee, Stratton) (Filed on 9/15/2021) |
| Filing 16 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William H. Orrick: Motion Hearing held on 9/8/2021 re #11 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order. Total Time in Court: 8 minutes. Court Reporter: Marla Knox. Plaintiff Attorney: Stratton Scott Barbee. Defendant Attorney: Kristi Wells. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/8/2021) |
|
Filing 15
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER by Judge William H. Orrick granting #11 Motion for TRO. Motion for preliminary injunction due by 9/15/2021. Response due by 9/22/2021. Reply due by 9/27/2021. Motion Hearing set for 9/29/2021 02:00 PM via Videoconference before Judge William H. Orrick. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2021)
|
| Filing 14 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Order Re Hearing on TRO served on Superior Loan Servicing on September 7, 2021, filed by Tyrious Gates. (Attachments: #1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Barbee, Stratton) (Filed on 9/8/2021) |
| Filing 13 CLERKS NOTICE SETTING ZOOM HEARING. The Motion Hearing set for 9/8/2021 11:00 AM will be held via Zoom webinar.Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at #https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/who General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadca sting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.Zoom Guidance and Setup: #https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/< /A<. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2021) |
|
Filing 12
ORDER SETTING HEARING ON TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, REQUIRING NOTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT re #11 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order. Defendant may file a response to the motion by 9/7/2021. Motion Hearing set for 9/8/2021 11:00 AM via Videoconference before Judge William H. Orrick. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/03/2021. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2021)
|
| Filing 11 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Tyrious Gates. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Barbee, Stratton) (Filed on 9/3/2021) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE by Tyrious Gates Notice of Dismissal of Bankruptcy Case (Barbee, Stratton) (Filed on 9/3/2021) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER DENYING #2 APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 08/18/2021. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2021)
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned using a proportionate, random, and blind system pursuant to General Order No. 44 to Judge William H. Orrick for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson no longer assigned to case, Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras.. Signed by Clerk on 8/18/21. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(asS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2021)
|
| Filing 7 CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2021) |
| Filing 6 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 11/11/2021. Initial Case Management Conference set for 11/18/2021 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor. (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2021) |
| Filing 5 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 9/1/2021. (haS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/18/2021) |
| Filing 4 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Tyrious Gates. (Barbee, Stratton) (Filed on 8/18/2021) |
| Filing 3 Proposed Order re #2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by Tyrious Gates. (Barbee, Stratton) (Filed on 8/18/2021) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Tyrious Gates. (Barbee, Stratton) (Filed on 8/18/2021) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Tyrious Gates. Filed byTyrious Gates. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Barbee, Stratton) (Filed on 8/18/2021) |
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 Northern 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: Gates v. Superior Loan Servicing | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Tyrious Gates | |
| Represented By: | Stratton Scott Barbee |
| 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: Superior Loan Servicing | |
| 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.
