PARKER v. CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE, CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION N.A. et al
| BRENDA PARKER |
| ALL AMERICAN TOWING AND RECOVERY, LLC., CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE, CAPITAL ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION N.A., INDIANAPOLIS MARION COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT (IMPD), OFFICER LOYAL, OFFICER PILKINGTON, OFFICER ROLINSON and ONYX ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, 5 STAR AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES, LLC, DALIAS |
| 1:2015cv00826 |
| May 26, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Tim A. Baker |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act |
| 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
166
ORDER - Presently pending before the Court is a Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal filed by pro se Plaintiff Brenda Parker. [Filing No. 165 .] Ms. Parker seeks to supplement the record of her case on appeal with a receipt from Federal Expr ess ("Fed Ex") that she claims shows the date on which her Second Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint was mailed. [Filing No. 165 at 1.] For the reasons stated herein, Ms. Parker's Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal is not properly brought pursuant to Rule 10(e) because she seeks to add new material to the record on appeal that was not before this Court. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Ms. Parker's Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal. As set forth herein, Ms. Parker's Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal, 165 , is DENIED. (See Order). Copies to parties pursuant to distribution list. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/15/2018. (APD)
|
|
Filing
151
ORDER granting City Defendants' 109 Motion for Summary Judgment. In addition, summary judgment in favor of Mark Senesac is also Granted. Final Judgment shall issue accordingly. (See Order). Copy to Plaintiff and Mark Senesac via U.S. Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/12/2017. (MAC)
|
|
Filing
136
ENTRY DISCUSSING REQUEST TO PROCEED ON APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS - Ms. Parker seeks leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of the appellate fees of $505.00. An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that the appeal is not taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915; see Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). "Good faith" within the meaning of § 1915 must be judged by an objective, not a subjective, standard. See id. There is no objectively reasonable argument Ms. Parker could present to argue that the disposition of this action was erroneous. In pursuing an appeal, therefore, Ms. Parker "is acting in bad faith... [because] to sue in bad faith means merely to sue on the basis of a frivolous claim, which is to say a claim that no reasonable person could suppose to have any merit." Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026 (7th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, her appeal is not taken in good faith, and for this reason her request for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, [Filing No. 131 ], is DENIED. Copies mailed pursuant to Distribution List. (USCA #17-02123). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/12/2017. (APD)
|
|
Filing
120
ORDER - For the reasons set forth herein, Ms. Parker's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is DENIED. 95 Ms. Parker's Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Order of Dismissal and Add Capital One and Onyx Back Into Action is also DENIED . 115 . Capital One and Onyx's request for the Court to enter partial final judgment in their favor pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) is GRANTED. 106 The Court will enter partial final judgment in favor of Capital One and Onyx by separate entry, and the Clerk is directed to TERMINATE those parties on the docket. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to UPDATE the docket to reflect Defendant Dalias' actual name--Mark Senesac. The Court GRANTS Ms. Parker's extension request given the various rulings the Court has issued today, and ORDERS Ms. Parker to file a response to the City Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by June 12, 2017. Ms. Parker should not anticipate further extensions of that deadline. She shoul d also be sure to thoroughly review the Notice Regarding Right to Respond to and Submit Evidence in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment. 112 . SEE ORDER. Copy sent to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/28/2017. (JRB)
|
|
Filing
56
ORDER. For the reasons set forth herein, Ms. Parker's Motion to Set Aside is DENIED, [Filing No. 52], and her Objection to the Magistrate Judge's Scheduling Order is OVERRULED, [Filing No. 55]. The initial pretrial conference scheduled for 2:30 p.m. on January 19, 2016, in Room 234, United States Courthouse, 46 E. Ohio Street, Indianapolis, IN, will proceed as scheduled, absent good cause shown by motion to continue it, as would be determined by the assigned Magistrate Judge. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/7/2016. Copy sent to Plaintiff via U.S. Mail. (BGT)
|
|
Filing
45
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS. Capital One and Onyx's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, [Filing No. 25], and Count IV (FDCPA claim) and Count V (FCRA claim) of Ms. Parker's Amended Complaint are DISMISSED. Count VII of Ms. Parker's Amended Complaint is not at issue in the pending motion and will proceed at this time. [Filing No. 21 at 7 (Court's screening order allowing Ms. Parker's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due process claim to proceed).] No final judgment shall issue at this time. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/3/2015. Copy sent to Ms. Parker via U.S. Mail. (BGT)
|
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 Southern 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.
