Neelam Uppal v. Wells Fargo Financial
| WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL, INC. |
| NEELAM T. UPPAL |
| 21-10690 |
| March 1, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 20, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| NOTICE OF CIP FILING DEFICIENCY to Neelam T. Uppal. You are receiving this notice because you have not completed the Certificate of Interested Persons (CIP). Failure to comply with 11th Cir. Rules 26.1-1 through 26.1-4 may result in dismissal of the case or appeal under 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b), return of deficient documents without action, or other sanctions on counsel, the party, or both. [Entered: 04/20/2021 11:43 AM] |
| USDC Order: denying Plaintiff's Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration as to Appellant Neelam T. Uppal was filed on 03/25/2021. Docket Entry 84. [Entered: 04/15/2021 04:27 PM] |
| Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Mary Josephine Walter for Appellee Wells Fargo Financial, Inc.. On the same day the CIP is served, any filer represented by counsel must also complete the court's web-based stock ticker symbol certificate at the link here http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/web-based-cip or on the court's website. See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-1(b). [21-10690] (ECF: Mary Walter) [Entered: 03/29/2021 02:50 PM] |
| The Transcript Order Form has not been filed as to Appellant Neelam T. Uppal. The appellant is hereby notified that upon expiration of 14 days from this date, this appeal will be dismissed by the clerk without further notice unless the default has been corrected. [Entered: 03/24/2021 12:11 PM] |
| NOTICE OF CIP FILING DEFICIENCY to Neelam T. Uppal. You are receiving this notice because you have not completed the Certificate of Interested Persons (CIP). Failure to comply with 11th Cir. Rules 26.1-1 through 26.1-4 may result in dismissal of the case or appeal under 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b), return of deficient documents without action, or other sanctions on counsel, the party, or both. [Entered: 03/24/2021 11:11 AM] |
| APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Mary J. Walter for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. [21-10690] (ECF: Mary Walter) [Entered: 03/16/2021 02:51 PM] |
| CIVIL APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by Appellant Neelam T. Uppal on 02/25/2021. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Awaiting Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or before 03/23/2021 as to Appellant Neelam T. Uppal. Awaiting Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or before 03/29/2021 as to Appellee Wells Fargo Financial, Inc. [Entered: 03/05/2021 10:36 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
| Search for this case: Neelam Uppal v. Wells Fargo Financial | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellee: WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL, INC. | |
| Represented By: | Maria J. Londono |
| Represented By: | Jacob Elias Mitrani |
| Represented By: | Mary Josephine Walter |
| 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 ] |
| Plaintiff / appellant: NEELAM T. UPPAL | |
| Represented By: | Neelam T. Uppal |
| 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.
