FITZGERALD v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP.
| JACOBI FITZGERALD |
| CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP. |
| 3:2024cv00028 |
| February 6, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Crystal S Wildeman |
| Richard L Young |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 12, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
FINAL JUDGMENT: Today, the court dismissed this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For that reason, the court now enters final judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff. See Order. Signed by District Judge Richard L Young on 3/12/2024. Copy mailed to plaintiff. (LF)
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION: On February 13, 2024, the court dismissed Plaintiff Jacobi Fitzgerald's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Filing No. #5 ). The court granted Fitzgerald leave to file an amended complaint through March 5, 2024, and warned that failure to do so may result in dismissal of the action. Fitzgerald did not file an amended complaint within that time. Therefore, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Final judgment shall issue by separate order. see Order. Signed by District Judge Richard L Young on 3/12/2024. Copy mailed to Plaintiff. (LF)
|
|
Filing 5
ENTRY GRANTING MOTION FOR IFP STATUS AND SCREENING COMPLAINT: Fitzgerald's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Filing No. #2 ) is GRANTED. Fitzgerald's complaint (Filing No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. He is GRANTED leave to amend his complaint. He shall have through March 5, 2024, to file an amended complaint, or the case will be dismissed without further warning. If he chooses to file an amended complaint, Fitzgerald should be sure to allege the facts necessary to establish the court's subject matter jurisdiction. He should also describe the contract he entered into with Credit Acceptance Corp. See Order. Signed by District Judge Richard L Young on 2/13/2024. Copy sent to Plaintiff via US Mail. (LF)
|
| Filing 4 Notice to File Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. (RAGS) (CCG) |
| Filing 3 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (CCG) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff JACOBI FITZGERALD. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(CCG) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP., filed by JACOBI FITZGERALD. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(CCG) |
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 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
| Search for this case: FITZGERALD v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: JACOBI FITZGERALD | |
| 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: CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP. | |
| 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.
