Friend v. Taylor Law, PLLC
| Russell Friend |
| Taylor Law PLLC |
| 4:2017cv00029 |
| April 14, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana |
| Lafayette Office |
| Tippecanoe |
| Paul R Cherry |
| Joseph S Van Bokkelen |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 |
| 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
125
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DENIES the Plaintiff's request for an order compelling the Defendant to provide the Plaintiff with a copy of his deposition. Signed by Judge Theresa L Springmann on 7/25/22. (nhc)
|
|
Filing
98
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 69 MOTION for Reconsideration by Defendant Taylor Law PLLC and DENYING 70 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Defendant Taylor Law PLLC. The Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Defendant Taylor Law on Count V and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of Defendant Taylor Law on Count V. Any party wishing to assert that Friend has standing for Count IV of the Amended Complaint may file a brief on the subject by 11/12/2021, to which a response and a reply may be filed under the deadlines set by Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 7-1(d)(3). If no brief is filed, the Court will vacate the judgment as to that count only and dismiss it without prejudice for lack of standing. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 10/27/2021. (lhc)
|
|
Filing
62
OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS in part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 39 as to Counts 2, 3, and 4, and DENIES the motion as to all other counts. The Court GRANTS in part Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 41 as to Count 1, and DENIES the motion as to all other Counts. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Count to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff on Count 1, and to enter judgment in favor of Defendant on Counts 2, 3, and 4. The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Sanction Precluding Evidence or Striking Affidavit 48 . The Court ORDERS the parties to file a status report, addressing the status of this case as to Count 5, by 1/13/2021. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 12/18/2020. (lhc)
|
|
Filing
20
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 17 Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Defendant ORDERED to file Amended Answer to add the proposed second affirmative defense only by 12/15/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 12/11/17. (plm) Modified on 12/12/2017 to show as opinion (mlc).
|
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 Indiana 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
| Search for this case: Friend v. Taylor Law, PLLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Russell Friend | |
| Represented By: | Duran L Keller |
| Represented By: | Brian L Ponder |
| 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: Taylor Law PLLC | |
| 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.
