Banister v. J. P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al
Delois A. Banister |
J. P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and U.S. Bank, N.A. |
1:2019cv06248 |
September 19, 2019 |
US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
Sara L Ellis |
Other Fraud |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on October 25, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 18 AMENDED complaint by Delois A. Banister against J. P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., U.S. Bank, N.A. (Exhibits) (nsf, ) |
Filing 17 RECEIVED Amended Complaint and 0 copies by Delois A. Banister (nsf, ) |
Filing 15 ENTERED JUDGMENT. Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 10/24/2019. Mailed notice (lma, ) |
Filing 14 ORDER: The Court denies Plaintiff Delois A. Banister's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #4 and dismisses this case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Civil case terminated. See Statement. Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 10/24/2019. Mailed notice (lma, ) |
Filing 13 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: The Court grants Defendant's motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise plead #12 . Defendant's responsive pleading is due by 11/6/19. Motion for extension of time to answer #10 is moot. Mailed notice (rj, ) |
Filing 12 MOTION by Defendant U.S. Bank, N.A. for extension of time to file answer (CORRECTED) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Delois Banister's Complaint, #2 Exhibit Delois Banister's Prior Complaint for Violation of Constitutional Rights, #3 Exhibit Order Dismissing Banister's Prior Complaint, #4 Supplement Notification as to Affiliates)(Strautins, Blake) |
Filing 11 NOTICE of Motion by Blake Anthony Strautins for presentment of motion for extension of time to file answer, #10 before Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 10/22/2019 at 09:45 AM. (Strautins, Blake) |
Filing 10 MOTION by Defendant U.S. Bank, N.A. for extension of time to file answer (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Delois Banister's Complaint, #2 Exhibit Delois Banister's Previous Complaint for Violation of Constitutional Rights, #3 Exhibit Order Dismissing Banister's Previous Complaint, #4 Supplement U.S. Bank's Notification as to Affiliates under Local Rule 3.2)(Strautins, Blake) |
Filing 9 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant U.S. Bank, N.A. by Pooja Dosi (Dosi, Pooja) |
Filing 8 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant U.S. Bank, N.A. by Blake Anthony Strautins (Strautins, Blake) |
Filing 7 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (cc, ) |
Filing 4 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Delois A. Banister for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (cc, ) |
Filing 3 PRO SE Appearance by Plaintiff Delois A. Banister (cc, ) |
Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (cc, ) |
Filing 1 RECEIVED Complaint and 2 copies by Delois A. Banister (Exhibits) (cc, ) |
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 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.