Elliot & Callan, Inc., v. Crofton

Elliot & Callan, Inc., v. Crofton

Plaintiff:	Elliot & Callan, Inc.,
Defendant:	Luther Allan Crofton
Case Number:	0:2007cv03391
Filed:	July 18, 2007
Court:	US District Court for the District of Minnesota
Office:	DMN Office
County:	Hennepin
Presiding Judge:	Jeanne J. Graham
Presiding Judge:	Patrick J. Schiltz
Nature of Suit:	Fraud or Truth-In-Lending
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

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
October 13, 2009	Filing 115 ORDER - Defendant's exemption claims are DENIED insofar as they relate to the garnishment summonses served on Fidelity Investments and Ameriprise Brokerage. Plaintiff may levy on all garnished funds. No later than October 20, 2009, defendant m ust provide proof to plaintiff that the NRG Affiliates Employees Savings Plan is an ERISA-qualified plan. If defendant fails to provide such proof, plaintiff may garnish funds in such plan and may seek any court orders necessary to effectuate the garnishment. If plaintiff needs further discovery, plaintiff is directed to contact the chambers of Magistrate Judge Boylan.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 10/13/09. (bjs)
March 30, 2009	Filing 87 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Elliot & Callan, Inc. shall recover $47,427.60 from defendant Luther Allan Crofton.LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 03/30/09. (bjs)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 13, 2009

Filing 115 ORDER - Defendant's exemption claims are DENIED insofar as they relate to the garnishment summonses served on Fidelity Investments and Ameriprise Brokerage. Plaintiff may levy on all garnished funds. No later than October 20, 2009, defendant m ust provide proof to plaintiff that the NRG Affiliates Employees Savings Plan is an ERISA-qualified plan. If defendant fails to provide such proof, plaintiff may garnish funds in such plan and may seek any court orders necessary to effectuate the garnishment. If plaintiff needs further discovery, plaintiff is directed to contact the chambers of Magistrate Judge Boylan.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 10/13/09. (bjs)

March 30, 2009

Filing 87 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Elliot & Callan, Inc. shall recover $47,427.60 from defendant Luther Allan Crofton.LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 03/30/09. (bjs)

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

Search for this case: Elliot & Callan, Inc., v. Crofton
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Elliot & Callan, Inc.,
Represented By:	Mathew M Meyer
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: Luther Allan Crofton
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?