Sexton et al v. Bank of New York Mellon et al
| Thomas Sexton and Charlotte Sexton |
| Bank of New York Mellon, Reisenfeld and Associates and Select Portfolio Servicing |
| 5:2015cv00329 |
| November 2, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| Lexington Office |
| Bourbon |
| Danny C. Reeves |
| Other Personal Injury |
| 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
34
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) GRANTING IN PART dfts' 30 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings or, Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment, with respect to the following parties & claims: (a) the intrusion upon seclusion claim as to b oth dfts; (b) the claims under 15:1692g, 1692j, 1692d, 1692e & 1692f as to both dfts; (c) the claim under 1692c as to Select Portfolio Servicing; (2) DENYING with respect to the remaining claim against Bank of New York Mellon. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 7/28/16.(KJR)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) GRANTING dft Reisenfeld and Associates' 6 MOTION to Dismiss; (2) the dft's 6 Motion to Strike is DENIED AS MOOT; (3) all claims asserted against Reisenfeld and Associates are DISMISSED with prejudice; Reisenfeld and Associates is DISMISSED as a party to this case; (4) the Memo Opinion & Order does not affect the pla's claims against other dfts. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 5/4/16.(KJR)cc: COR
|
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 Kentucky Eastern 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.
