Balogh v. Law Office of Ira T. Nevel LLC et al
| Lawrence J Balogh |
| Law Office of Ira T. Nevel, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Ocwen Loan Servicing |
| 1:2017cv00862 |
| February 1, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| Chicago Office |
| Cook |
| Edmond E. Chang |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1640 |
| 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
33
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. For the reasons stated in the Opinion, the Ocwen and Deutsche motion to dismiss 13 is granted as to the federal law claims. The Nevel motion to dismiss 20 is terminated withou t prejudice in light of the anticipated relinquishment of supplemental jurisdiction. But before entering a dismissal with prejudice and a final judgment, the Court will give Balogh until 12/12/2017, to move for leave to amend the complaint (and attac h a proposed amended complaint). It does not seem likely that Balogh can fix the problems with the RESPA and TILA claims, but ordinarily a plaintiff should be given a chance to amend the complaint. If no motion is filed by that date, then the Court will enter the dismissal with prejudice on the federal claims and relinquish the state claims. The status hearing of 12/19/2017 remains in place. Emailed notice(slb, )
|
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.
