Hancock Bank of Louisiana v. Advocate Financial, LLC et al

Case Number: 3:2010cv00132
Filed: February 23, 2010
Court: Louisiana Middle District Court
Office: Baton Rouge Office
Presiding Judge: Frank J. Polozola
Referring Judge: Stephen C. Riedlinger
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instrument
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Negotiable Instrument
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
January 11, 2011 43 Opinion or Order of the Court RULING granting 27 Motion for Summary Judgment. Hancock Bank is entitled to summary judgment on its main demand against La Chenaie in the amount of $7,311,066.59, plus additional default interest which shall continue to accrue on the unpaid p rincipal balance at a default rate of 21% per annum until paid in full, plus additional attorneys' fees and costs that Hancock Bank may incur in enforcing the judgment, as well as any costs and fees that may accrue under the Note and Guaran ty from August 1, 2010, going forward. Hancock Bank is also entitled to summary judgment on the counterclaim by La Chenaie. The law is clear that Hancock Bank's security interest in Advocate's collateral is valid and Hancock Bank is a secured creditor. LaChenaie's counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Judge Frank J. Polozola on 1/10/11. (PJH) Modified on 1/11/2011 to edit text (PJH).

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 Louisiana Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hancock Bank of Louisiana v. Advocate Financial, LLC et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ 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.

Why Is My Information Online?