Asbell v. Ability Recovery Services, LLC
Chloe Asbell |
Ability Recovery Services, LLC |
0:2019cv62549 |
October 14, 2019 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
Roy K Altman |
Patrick M Hunt |
Consumer Credit |
15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on December 3, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 10 Joint SCHEDULING REPORT - Rule 26(f) by Chloe Asbell (Mize, Joshua) |
Filing 9 Certificate of Other Affiliates/Corporate Disclosure Statement - NONE disclosed by Ability Recovery Services, LLC (Wydro, Ashley) |
Filing 8 ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Complaint by Ability Recovery Services, LLC. (Wydro, Ashley) |
Filing 7 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Chloe Asbell (Mize, Joshua) |
Filing 6 Order Requiring Scheduling Report and Certificates of Interested Parties. Joint Scheduling Report due by 12/3/2019. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 11/12/2019. See attached document for full details. (ls) |
Filing 5 PAPERLESS ORDER granting #4 the Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. The Defendant shall file an Answer or otherwise respond to #1 the Plaintiff's Complaint on or before November 22, 2019. Note that no further extensions of this deadline will be granted. Signed by Judge Roy K. Altman on 11/12/2019. (jrf) |
Filing 4 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply/Answer as to #1 Complaint by Ability Recovery Services, LLC. Attorney Ashley Wydro added to party Ability Recovery Services, LLC(pty:dft). (Wydro, Ashley) |
Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Ability Recovery Services, LLC. (cds) |
Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Roy K. Altman and Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (cds) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Ability Recovery Services, LLC. Filing fees $ 400.00 receipt number 113C-12061368, filed by Chloe Asbell. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summon(s))(Mize, Joshua) |
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 Florida Southern 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: Asbell v. Ability Recovery Services, LLC | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Defendant: Ability Recovery Services, LLC | |
Represented By: | Ashley Wydro |
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: Chloe Asbell | |
Represented By: | Joshua Aaron Mize |
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.