Chavez v. D2 Management, LLC
Victoria L. Chavez |
D2 Management, LLC |
1:2021cv02349 |
August 31, 2021 |
US District Court for the District of Colorado |
Raymond P Moore |
Scott T Varholak |
Consumer Credit |
15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on September 14, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 12 Civil Case Terminated pursuant to the #11 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice filed in this case on 9/14/2021. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney fees. Text Only Entry (evana, ) |
Filing 11 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal of Case With Prejudice by Plaintiff Victoria L. Chavez (Volheim, Nathan) |
Filing 10 MINUTE ORDER: This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's seemingly "two-step" dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Plaintiff provides no authority for what she seeks to do under Rule 41 and the Court is unaware of any legal authority which would allow this process contemplated by Plaintiff. Generally, a dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A) is automatic and a plaintiff cannot simply "reinstate" a dismissed case unilaterally. Accordingly, on or before Friday, September 17, 2021, Plaintiff shall file either a new, unconditional, voluntary dismissal (with or without prejudice) or such other paper as she deems appropriate to address the relief she seeks. If the Court receives no filing by close of business (5:00 p.m.) on September 17, 2021, the Court will assume that Plaintiff is dismissing her case voluntarily without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and the Clerk will terminate this case. SO ORDERED by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 9/13/2021. (Text Only Entry) (rmsec ) |
Filing 9 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal of Case Without Prejudice with Leave to Reinstate by Plaintiff Victoria L. Chavez (Volheim, Nathan) |
Filing 8 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Eric Donald Coleman on behalf of Victoria L. ChavezAttorney Eric Donald Coleman added to party Victoria L. Chavez(pty:pla) (Coleman, Eric) |
Filing 7 ORDER Setting Scheduling Conference, by Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak on 9/1/2021. Proposed Scheduling Order is due 11/9/2021 AND a Scheduling Conference is set for 11/16/2021 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom A 402 before Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. (angar, ) |
Filing 6 MINUTE ORDER: With the assignment of this matter, the parties are advised that throughout this case they are expected to be familiar and comply with not only the Local Rules of this District, but also Judge Raymond P. Moore's Civil Practice Standards, which may be found at: http://www.cod.uscourts.gov/JudicialOfficers/ActiveArticleIIIJudges/HonRaymondPMoore.aspx. SO ORDERED by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 9/1/2021. (Text Only Entry) (rmsec ) |
Filing 5 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b), this case is referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge to (1) convene a scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and enter a scheduling order meeting the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.2, (2) conduct such status conferences and issue such orders necessary for compliance with the scheduling order, including amendments or modifications of the scheduling order upon a showing of good cause, (3) hear and determine pretrial matters, including discovery and other non-dispositive motions, (4) conduct a pretrial conference and enter a pretrial order, and (5) conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and submit proposed findings of fact and recommendations for rulings on dispositive motions. Court sponsored alternative dispute resolution is governed by D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.6. On the recommendation or informal request of the magistrate judge or on the request of the parties by motion, this court may direct the parties to engage in an early neutral evaluation, a settlement conference, or another alternative dispute resolution proceeding. By Judge Raymond P. Moore on 9/1/2021. (Text Only Entry) (rmsec ) |
Filing 4 SUMMONS issued by Clerk. (Attachments: #1 Magistrate Judge Consent Form) (mbrow, ) |
Filing 3 Case assigned to Judge Raymond P. Moore and drawn to Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak. Text Only Entry (mbrow, ) |
Filing 2 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Nathan Charles Volheim on behalf of Victoria L. Chavez (Volheim, Nathan) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against D2 Management, LLC (Filing fee $ 402,Receipt Number ACODC-8049355)Attorney Nathan Charles Volheim added to party Victoria L. Chavez(pty:pla), filed by Victoria L. Chavez. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons)(Volheim, Nathan) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: Chavez v. D2 Management, LLC | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Victoria L. Chavez | |
Represented By: | Nathan Charles Volheim |
Represented By: | Eric Donald Coleman |
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: D2 Management, LLC | |
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.