White v. TD Bank USA, N.A.
Plaintiff: Elizabeth White
Defendant: TD Bank USA, N.A.
Case Number: 4:2015cv04761
Filed: October 15, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: Oakland Office
County: Alameda
Presiding Judge: Donna M. Ryu
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332
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
July 1, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 57 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED REQUEST for Continuance of the Case Management Conference and Hearing 56 . Motion to Enforce Settlement 51 and Case Management Conference are continued to 8/25/2016 11:00 AM, at the U.S. District Court, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland. Updated case management statement due 8/18/2016. Signed by Judge Donna M. Ryu on 7/1/2016. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2016)
June 29, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 55 ORDER Continuing Case Management Conference and Hearing on Motion to Enforce Settlement 51 to August 11, 2016 at 11:00 a.m. at the U.S. District Court, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, 94612; Denying Stipulation to Shorten Notice Period 53 . Further Case Management Conference set for 8/11/2016 11:00 AM. Motion Hearing set for 8/11/2016 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 06/29/2016. (dmrlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2016)
June 2, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 47 ORDER Granting Stipulation 46 . The deadline for the parties to file a joint status report is continued to 6/22/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 6/2/2016. (dmrlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/2/2016)
February 3, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 38 ORDER (AS MODIFIED) re 37 Stipulation With Proposed Order re Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings, 36 Stipulation with Proposed Order re Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings. Initial Case Management Conference and Hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint continued to 3/10/2016 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 2/3/16. (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2016)
January 20, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 33 Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 31 Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Deadline for Response to Motion to Dismiss.(dmrlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2016)
December 2, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 22 ORDER OF REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE RYU FOR ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS UPON CONSENT. All parties having consented to assignment of the above-titled matter to a United States Magistrate Judge, the above-titled action is referred to the Honorable Donna M. Ryu, to whom the matter was previously assigned, for all further proceedings and entry of judgment. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on December 2, 2015. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2015)
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 this case: White v. TD Bank USA, N.A.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Elizabeth White
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: TD Bank USA, N.A.
Represented By: David Ian Dalby
Represented By: Ellen B. Silverman
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?