Cuella Gomez v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al
| Emanuel Norberto Cuella Gomez |
| JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and Does 1 through 10 |
| 3:2022cv01773 |
| November 11, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| Daniel E Butcher |
| John A Houston |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 ds Removal- Contract Dispute |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 1, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER Granting Joint #3 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re #1 Notice of Removal, Ex. A - Initial Complaint JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. answer due 1/17/2023. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 11/16/2022. (smy1)
|
| Filing 3 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Notice of Removal, Ex. A - Initial Complaint by JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.. (Grotzinger, Jordan) (smy1). |
| Filing 2 Corporate Disclosure Statement by JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. identifying Corporate parent JPMorgan Chase & Co., Other Affiliate The Vanguard Group, Inc. for JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (cxl1) Modified on 11/16/2022 (rmc). |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ACASDC-17337617.), filed by JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B)The new case number is 3:22-cv-1773-JAH-DEB. Judge John A. Houston and Magistrate Judge Daniel E. Butcher are assigned to the case.(cxl1) (rmc). |
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 Southern 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.
