Lockhart v. HSBC Finance Corporation et al
| Eloise Lockhart |
| HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC Mortgage Corp, Household Finance Corporation III, Merscorp Inc., MERS, Freedman Anselmo Lindberg LLC, Steven C. Lindberg, Jane & John Does 1-10, Freedman Anselmo Lindberg, Brady Pilgrim, Christakis Bell LLP, Jeffrey Pilgrim, Jane and John Does 1-10 and Arnold G. Kaplan |
| 1:2013cv09323 |
| December 30, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| XX US, Outside the State of IL |
| Thomas M. Durkin |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
186
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: For the reasons stated, Lockhart's motion to reconsider is denied, R. 168 , and all of the motions to dismiss are granted with prejudice, R. 155 , R. 157 , R. 159 , R. 160 . Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 10/19/2020. Mailed notice. (ecw, )
|
|
Filing
121
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order: For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the defendants' motion to vacate default, 114 . Given the defendants' belated appearance in this case after Lockhart's unsuccessful attempts to serve them at t heir place of business, the Court hopes and expects that the defendants will now waive service of process. In case they do not do so, the Court on its own motion extends Rule 4(m)'s time limit to serve the defendants with process to August 31, 2 015. If it appears the defendants, a law firm and a lawyer, are evading service, appropriate sanctions will be entered in addition to referral of the conduct to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. The Court will retain the upcoming July 14, 2015 status date for a report on the status of the pending state court litigation. Defendants FAL and Lindberg should consider attending that status conference through counsel, whether served or not, so they can being participating in this litigation, and so the needless waste of judicial resources occasioned by the defaultand the vacating of itis not repeated. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 7/8/2015:Mailed notice(srn, )
|
|
Filing
86
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order:For the foregoing reasons, Lockhart's motion to reconsider, R. 74, is denied, and the case remains stayed. The status hearing set for October 1, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., remains. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 9/30/2014:Mailed notice(srn, )
|
|
Filing
71
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER:For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants' motions to dismiss, R. 35, 38, 42, are granted in part and denied in part. Count I, II, III, and XV are dismissed without prejudice. Counts IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, an d XIV are dismissed with prejudice. Count XI is dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants except HSBC, HFC III, MERS, and MERSCORP. Counts XII and XIII are also dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants except HSBC and HFC III. Due to the application of the Colorado River doctrine to Counts XI, XII, and XIII, the case will remain stayed until the state court litigation terminates. See Rogers, 58 F.3d at 302. At that time, any party may request the Court to lift the stay, and Lockhar t may seek leave to amend her complaint if she chooses. The case is set for a status hearing on October 1, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., at which time the parties can provide the Court with an update on the status of the state court proceedings. Signed by the Honorable Thomas M. Durkin on 8/1/2014:Mailed notice(srn, )
|
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 Illinois Northern 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.
