Usry v. Equityexperts.org, LLC
Plaintiff: Sara Usry
Defendant: Equityexperts.org, LLC
Case Number: 1:2016cv00010
Filed: January 29, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia
Office: Augusta Office
County: Columbia
Presiding Judge: Brian K. Epps
Presiding Judge: J. Randal Hall
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
December 21, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 159 ORDER denying without prejudice Defendants' 154 Motion to Stay; adopting Plaintiffs' class notice and granting Plaintiffs' 124 Motion to include questionnaire. The Court will allow Defendants, within seven days, to submit a question to Plaintiffs that shall be included in the questionnaire. The Clerk of Court is authorized to affix its approval on the last page of the notice. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 12/21/2020. (jlh) Modified on 12/21/2020 (jlh).
November 12, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 152 ORDER denying 122 Motion for Reconsideration. Defendants have 14 days from the date of this order to file a response to 124 MOTION for Approval of Class Notice and Questionnaire filed by Daniel Darnell, Sarah Usry. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 11/12/20. (cmr)
May 8, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 146 ORDER denying as moot 140 Motion to Seal; granting 141 Motion to Seal. The Clerk is directed to seal the appropriate documents (Docs. 140-1, 140-2) until the conclusion of any and all direct appeals of this matter. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 05/08/2020. (thb)
April 13, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 134 ORDER denying 123 Motion to Seal Document without prejudice. Defendant shall file a motion to seal in accordance with this Court's Local Rules within 14 days; granting 129 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Defendants shall have 14 days from the date of the ruling on 122 Motion for Reconsideration within which to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Class Notice. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 4/13/2020. (pts)
March 5, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 121 ORDER granting 93 Motion to Certify Class. The Court CERTIFIES the proposed class and subclasses pursuant to FRCP 23(b)(3) as defined in 93 . Plaintiffs shall submit a proposed notice to the Court for approval. The Court appoints the appearing attorneys on behalf of Plaintiffs as class counsel. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Usry and Daniel as class representatives as directed herein. The parties are directed to submit a joint report relating to the status of discovery and other scheduling matters. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 3/5/2020. (pts)
March 12, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 90 ORDER denying without prejudice 79 Motion to Certify Class; granting 82 Motion to Amend/Correct. Plaintiffs shall have seven (7) days from the date of this Order to file their Second Amended Complaint as a stand-alone entry on the docket. The Clerk is directed to add Michael Novak, Jacqueline Galofaro and Mark Bredow as Defendants in this action. The parties are instructed to submit a proposed revised joint scheduling order within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. Plaintiff s is granted leave to file another motion for class certification within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order to seek to make the proposed general classes and subclasses ascertainable. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 03/12/2019. (thb)
February 16, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 78 ORDER denying without prejudice 77 Motion to Amend/Correct. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a new motion for class certification within 30 days of the date of this order. 61 Motion to Certify Class terminated. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 2/16/2018. (pts)
January 11, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 76 ORDER Directing Plaintiffs to refile 61 MOTION to Certify Class so that all citations to exhibits are properly labeled. Plaintiffs shall not make any substantive changes to their brief or exhibits. (Compliance due by 1/16/2018.) Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 1/11/2018. (pts)
July 26, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 71 ORDER finding as moot 44 Motion to Compel; granting in part 53 Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiff is awarded the sum of $1,700.00 in reasonable attorney's fees. Defendant shall pay the award within 14 days of the date of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 07/26/2017. (pts)
April 29, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 19 ORDER directing Defendant to file an expedited response to the motion to amend the current case deadlines,(doc. no. 18 ), by the close of business on Wednesday, May 4, 2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps on 04/29/2016. (thb)
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 Georgia Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Usry v. Equityexperts.org, LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Sara Usry
Represented By: David E. Hudson
Represented By: George G. Robertson
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: Equityexperts.org, LLC
Represented By: John H. Bedard, Jr.
Represented By: Michael K. Chapman
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?