Marley v. The Bank of New York Mellon

Justia Dockets & Filings First Circuit Massachusetts District Court Marley v. The Bank of New York Mellon

Marley v. The Bank of New York Mellon

Petitioner:	Robert P. Marley
Respondent:	The Bank of New York Mellon
Case Number:	1:2017cv10056
Filed:	January 12, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Office:	Boston Office
County:	Essex
Presiding Judge:	Nathaniel M. Gorton
Nature of Suit:	All Other Real Property
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
September 7, 2017	Filing 25 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ENDORSED ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDERIn accordance with the foregoing, 1) defendants motion to dismiss (Docket No. 7) is ALLOWED,2) plaintiffs motion to stay or, alternatively, for an extension of ti me to respond to defendants motion to dismiss (Docket No. 15) is DENIED, as moot,3) plaintiffs motion for a scheduling order (Docket No. 19) is DENIED, as moot and4) plaintiffs motion to remand (Docket No. 20) is DENIED. So ordered.(Caruso, Stephanie) .
February 24, 2017	Filing 16 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ENDORSED ORDER entered granting 14 Motion or Permission for Electronic Case Filing through the CM/ECF System. The court grants permission on the condition that the plaintiff satisfies all applicable training and other requirements for pro se litigants as stated in the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures, Page 5. The plaintiff is directed to complete the registration form accessible at https://public.mad.uscourts.gov/ecfreg.html. (Caruso, Stephanie)

Date Filed

Document Text

September 7, 2017

Filing 25 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ENDORSED ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDERIn accordance with the foregoing, 1) defendants motion to dismiss (Docket No. 7) is ALLOWED,2) plaintiffs motion to stay or, alternatively, for an extension of ti me to respond to defendants motion to dismiss (Docket No. 15) is DENIED, as moot,3) plaintiffs motion for a scheduling order (Docket No. 19) is DENIED, as moot and4) plaintiffs motion to remand (Docket No. 20) is DENIED. So ordered.(Caruso, Stephanie) .

February 24, 2017

Filing 16 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ENDORSED ORDER entered granting 14 Motion or Permission for Electronic Case Filing through the CM/ECF System. The court grants permission on the condition that the plaintiff satisfies all applicable training and other requirements for pro se litigants as stated in the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures, Page 5. The plaintiff is directed to complete the registration form accessible at https://public.mad.uscourts.gov/ecfreg.html. (Caruso, Stephanie)

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 Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Marley v. The Bank of New York Mellon
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Robert P. Marley
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 ]
Respondent: The Bank of New York Mellon
Represented By:	Thomas J. O'Neill
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.

Why Is My Information Online?