Fumero-Santiago et al v. Prestige Auto Cars, LLC
| Rosemary Fumero-Santiago and Jomar Cruz-Ramos |
| Prestige Auto Cars, LLC |
| 3:2018cv01448 |
| August 27, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Warren W Eginton |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1640 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 25, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 16 ANSWER to #1 Complaint by Prestige Auto Cars, LLC.(Kennedy, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 15 NOTICE of Appearance by Brendan Lorenz Mahoney on behalf of Jomar Cruz-Ramos, Rosemary Fumero-Santiago (Mahoney, Brendan) |
Filing 14
ORDER granting #12 Motion to Set Aside Default; granting #13 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Warren W. Eginton on 10/15/2018. (LaMura, K.)
|
| Filing 13 First MOTION for Extension of Time until running from the date the court acts on the Motion to Set Aside Default to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint #1 Complaint by Prestige Auto Cars, LLC. (Milano, Mark) |
| Filing 12 Consent MOTION to Set Aside Default by Prestige Auto Cars, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit)(Milano, Mark) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey William Kennedy on behalf of Prestige Auto Cars, LLC (Kennedy, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Appearance by Mark A. Milano on behalf of Prestige Auto Cars, LLC (Milano, Mark) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER granting #8 Motion for Default Entry 55(a) Motion for default judgment due by 11/2/2018. A Motion for Default Judgment pursuant to FRCP 55(b) shall be filed or this action will be dismissed by the Clerk pursuant to FRCP 41(a).. Signed by Clerk on 10/03/2018. (Gould, K.)
|
| Filing 8 MOTION for Default Entry 55(a) for failure to plead as to Prestige Auto Cars LLC by Jomar Cruz-Ramos, Rosemary Fumero-Santiago. (Blinn, Daniel) |
| Filing 7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Rosemary Fumero-Santiago, Jomar Cruz-Ramos. Prestige Auto Cars, LLC served on 9/6/2018, answer due 9/27/2018. (Blinn, Daniel) |
| Filing 6 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Prestige Auto Cars, LLC* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Daniel S. Blinn* *Consumer Law Group* *35 Cold Spring Rd., Suite 512* *Rocky Hill, CT 06067*. (Fazekas, J.) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO COUNSEL/SELF-REPRESENTED PARTIES : Counsel or self-represented parties initiating or removing this action are responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of #3 Electronic Filing Order, #4 Standing Protective Order, #2 Order on Pretrial Deadlines, #1 Complaint filed by Rosemary Fumero-Santiago, Jomar Cruz-Ramos Signed by Clerk on 8/27/2018.(Fazekas, J.) |
|
Filing 4
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Warren W. Eginton on 8/27/2018.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 3
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Warren W. Eginton on 8/27/2018.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 2
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 10/26/2018. Discovery due by 2/26/2019. Dispositive Motions due by 4/2/2019. Signed by Clerk on 8/27/2018.(Fazekas, J.)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Prestige Auto Cars, LLC ( Filing fee $400 receipt number ACTDC-4948330.), filed by Rosemary Fumero-Santiago, Jomar Cruz-Ramos.(Blinn, Daniel) |
| Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Prestige Auto Cars, LLC. (Blinn, Daniel) |
| Judge Warren W. Eginton added. (Anastasio, F.) |
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 Connecticut 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.
