Johnson v. Cach, LLC et al
Plaintiff: Christopher Johnson
Defendant: Cach, LLC and Mandarich Law Group, LLP
Case Number: 4:2016cv00383
Filed: August 22, 2016
Court: US District Court for the District of Idaho
Office: Boise - Southern Office
County: Blaine - Southern
Presiding Judge: B. Lynn Winmill
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
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
February 9, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 57 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs Motion to Reopen Case or, Alternatively, for Appointment of Arbitrators (Dkt. 50 ) is DENIED.2. Plaintiffs Motion to Strike (Dkt. 53 ) is DEEMED MOOT. This motionrelates the briefing on t he Motion to Reopen. However, the Court did not needto review attachments to the briefing on the Motion to Reopen in arriving at its decision and the motion to strike is therefore moot. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
September 25, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 49 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Dkt. 28 ) is DENIED. 2. Plaintiffs Motion for Substitution (Dkt. 29 ) is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 31 ) is DENIED. 4. P laintiffs Amended Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 32 ) is DENIED. 5. Plaintiffs motions to strike (Dkts. 40 & 47 ) are DEEMED MOOT. These motions relate to the briefing on the Motion for Reconsideration. However, the motion was without merit as it asked the Court to reconsider the same arguments. Accordingly, the court did not need to review additional briefing on the Motion for Reconsideration, and the motions to strike are moot. (Estate of Christopher E Johnson added. Christopher Johnson terminated) Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
December 16, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 27 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED:1. Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 11 ) is GRANTED in part and all claims are ordered to arbitration. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjs)
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 Idaho District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Johnson v. Cach, LLC et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Cach, LLC
Represented By: William T Sali
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: Mandarich Law Group, LLP
Represented By: William T Sali
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: Christopher Johnson
Represented By: Richard A Hearn
Represented By: T Jason Wood
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?