Vester v. Asset Acceptance, L.L.C.
Plaintiff: Ken W. Vester
Defendant: Asset Acceptance, L.L.C.
Case Number: 1:2008cv01957
Filed: September 11, 2008
Court: US District Court for the District of Colorado
Office: Consumer Credit Office
County: Mesa
Presiding Judge: Marcia S. Krieger
Presiding Judge: Gudrun J. Rice
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
October 4, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 141 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR TO ALTER/AMEND JUDGMENT: Mr. Vester has not demonstrated that the Court's resolution of the issues presented in his lawsuit is in error. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that (1) Plaintiff's Motion Under F.R.Civ.P. Rule 59(a)(1)(b) and Rule 59(a)(2) 139 is DENIED. by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 10/3/11.(msksec, )
February 23, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 128 Minute Entry for Bench Trial held before Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 2/23/2011. 124 ; 125 Motions in Limine are DENIED. Witness testimony and exhibits admitted/refused and other matters addressed are as reflected in the Minutes. Trial continued. (Court Reporter: Kara Spitler) (mskcd)
September 9, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 91 OPINION AND ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO DISMISS AND OVERRULING OBJECTIONS: The Plaintiff's 45 Second Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The Defendant's 47 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. The Plaintiff's 76 Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint and 81 Motion for Taking of Judicial Notice are DENIED. The Plaintiff's Objections (#89) are OVERRULED, and the Court ADOPTS the June 10, 2009, 88 Report and Recommendations. The Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is DENIED. Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 9/9/09.(msksec, )
June 10, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 88 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that Plaintiffs motions to 76 amend the complaint, request a jury trial, and for 81 judicial notice be DENIED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the parties have 10 days after service of this recommendation to serve and file specific written objections, by Magistrate Judge Laird T. Milburn on 06/10/09. (wjc, )
April 16, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 72 ORDER Granting in Part Plaintiff's 63 MOTION For Extension of Time and Modification of Scheduling Order and Defendant's 65 MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses. Plaintiff shall file a Status Report, containing the Defendants supplementa tion and objections thereto on or before 04/29/09. Should the motion thereafter remain unresolved additional proceedings, as needed, will be conducted. Defendants Motion to Compel Discovery from Plaintiff is granted in part, specifically that Plain tiff shall on or before 04/24/09 supplement its discovery responses to Defendants first set of interrogatories, request for production of documents and admissions, dated 01/18/09 by (1) furnishing copies of all of his banking records that are in his possession or control for the past ten (10) years, and/or providing a release to Defendant allowing him to obtain such records that are not in Plaintiffs possession or control, and in addition provide supplemental answers to Defendants interrogatorie s numbered 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 17, 19, and 20. Thereafter, Defendant shall file a status report with the Court on or before 04/30/09, which also shall contain any objections or additions thereto as Plaintiff may request, thereby informing the Court wh ether or not there is a continuing dispute between the parties regarding Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery. Thereafter, if necessary, the Court will again consider any remaining disputes concerning this motion to compel. Neither the Plaintiff no r Defendant shall be awarded fees or costs associated with filing of either motion addressed by this order, since the Court views the motions to represent only a continuing dispute between the parties regarding discovery in this case. Paragraph 8 of the 25 Scheduling Order entered in this case is amended so that the deadline for the joinder of parties and the discovery cutoff shall now be 05/04/09, by Magistrate Judge Laird T. Milburn on 04/16/09. (wjc, )
April 14, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 71 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laird T. Milburn: Status Conference held on 4/14/2009. Plaintiff shall file a Status Report, containing the Defendants supplementation and objections thereto on or before 04/29/09. Should th e motion thereafter remain unresolved additional proceedings, as needed, will be conducted. Defendants 65 Motion to Compel Discovery from Plaintiff is granted in part, specifically that Plaintiff shall on or before 04/24/09 supplement its discover y responses to Defendants first set of interrogatories, request for production of documents and admissions, dated 01/18/09 by (1) furnishing copies of all of his banking records that are in his possession or control for the past ten (10) years, and/o r providing a release to Defendant allowing him to obtain such records that are not in Plaintiffs possession or control, and in addition provide supplemental answers to Defendants interrogatories numbered 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 17, 19, and 20. Defendant shall file a status report with the Court on or before 04/30/09, which also shall contain any objections or additions thereto as Plaintiff may request, thereby informing the Court whether or not there is a continuing dispute between the parties regar ding Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery. Plaintiff nor Defendant shall be awarded fees or costs associated with filing of either motion. Paragraph 8 of the 25 Scheduling Order entered in this case is amended so that the deadline for the joinder of parties and the discovery cutoff shall 05/04/09. (Court Reporter FTR LTM AM.) (wjc, ) Modified on 4/21/2009 to correct filed date and text date of hearing (wjc, ).
March 2, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 60 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 53 Defendant's Motion for Protective Order. Defendant's Motion for Protective Order is denied, with the exception that part of Plaintiff's Rule 30(b)(6) of Plaintiff's 30(b)(6) notice dated 01/21/09 relating to all matters identified from information obtained during litigation of this case and Mesa County Court cases 07C3487 and 07C3488, which does not meet the "particularity" requirement of Rule 30(b)(6). The Court finds that the balance of Defendant's Motion for Protective Order is neither facially over broad nor unduly burdensome, by Magistrate Judge Laird T. Milburn on 03/02/09.(wjc, )
January 14, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 41 ORDER granting 32 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order (Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Expanded Discovery). The Scheduling Order is amended to permit the Plaintiff an additional 13 interrogatories. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gudrun J. Rice on 1/14/09.(wjc, )
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 Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Vester v. Asset Acceptance, L.L.C.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Ken W. Vester
Represented By: Paul F. Miller
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: Asset Acceptance, L.L.C.
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?