Bernal v. Maximum Auto Search Corporation et al
| Trinia Bernal |
| Maximum Auto Search Corporation and Western Surety Corporation |
| 1:2014cv01596 |
| June 5, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Denver Office |
| Denver |
| Lewis T. Babcock |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1601 |
| Both |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
101
ORDER: Pursuant to the 100 Stipulation and Joint Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice, this matter shall be dismissed with prejudice, each party to pay their own fees and costs, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 9/28/2015. (ebuch)
|
|
Filing
96
ORDER: Parties shall submit proposed voir dire questions and a single set of annotated jury instructions on or before September 25, 2015, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 9/18/2015. (ebuch)
|
|
Filing
91
MINUTE ORDER granting 89 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendants and 90 Motion to be Excused from Appearing at Trial Preparation Conference by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 9/15/15. Attorney Marc Bennett Tull terminated.(dkals, )
|
|
Filing
87
ORDER: Trial Preparation Conference set for 9/18/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom C401 before Judge Lewis T. Babcock. Lead counsel for the parties are ordered to appear in person. Prior to the conference, parties shall file updated witness lists and exhibit lists, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 9/11/2015. (ebuch)
|
|
Filing
86
ORDER denying 68 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on Defendant's Counterclaims, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 9/3/2015. (ebuch)
|
|
Filing
85
ORDER denying 66 and 67 Defendants Maximum Auto Search Corporation and Western Surety Company's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 8/26/2015. (ebuch)
|
|
Filing
79
ORDER denying 78 Plaintiff's Motion to File Sur-Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 7/20/2015. (ebuch)
|
|
Filing
59
ORDER denying 24 Plaintiff's Motion for Determination of a Question of Law Regarding Public Impact. Denying 39 Plaintiff's Motion to Certify a Question of Law to the Colorado Supreme Court, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 3/5/2015. (ebuch)
|
|
Filing
49
MINUTE ORDER granting 47 Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Motion to Dismiss. Withdrawing 43 Motion to Dismiss, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 12/23/2014. (eseam)
|
|
Filing
36
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer: Motion Hearing held on 11/17/2014. ORDERED: Plaintiff's MOTION 22 to File Second Amended Complaint and Jury Demand is GRANTED. Plaintiff's MOTION 25 to Com pel Responses to Discovery is GRANTED.By 12:00 p.m. on November 21, 2014, the Defendants are required to do the following: 1.) Answer interrogatory #4 to the extent that it is written. Identify how many times they have retained all or a portion of a down payment when financing was not obtained and produce documents reflecting such during April 1, 2012 through April 1, 2014. 2.) Identify how many times a person was charged or paid any per diem and/or mileage charges and produce documents reflecti ng such. 3.) Provide answers to interrogatories #4 & #5 consistent with the comments from the bench. All documents may be redacted to ensure privacy as stated on the record. The Court finds the objections raised were improper, incomplete, and evasive and therefore are deemed WAIVED. FTR: Courtroom A-402. (amont)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER denying as moot 9 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 9/26/14.(dkals, )
|
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 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.
