Edwards v. Finnancial Recovery Services (FRS) Inc. et al
Stephen S. Edwards |
Finnancial Recovery Services (FRS) Inc., Barclays Bank Inc., John Doe's and Jane Doe's |
0:2018cv01066 |
April 23, 2018 |
US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
DMN Office |
XX US, Outside State |
David T. Schultz |
John R. Tunheim |
Consumer Credit |
15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 106 ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 96 . (Written Opinion) Plaintiff's objections to the R&R 100 101 are OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation 96 is ACCEPTED. FRS's Motion for Summary Judgment 73 is GRANTED. Edwards' ;s "Motion to Strike Defendants Motionm [sic] to Dismiss and for This Court to issue Order For Rule 12(c) Judgment Against Both Defendants for Lying to this Court" 92 is DENIED. This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Signed by Judge Nancy E. Brasel on 9/26/2019. (KMW) Modified text on 9/26/2019 (ACH). cc: Stephen S. Edwards |
Filing 90 ORDER ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 64 . Plaintiff Stephen S Edwards' Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Defendant Barclays Bank Delaware 36 is DENIED. Defendant Barclays Bank Delaware's Motion to Dismiss 27 is GRANTED. Plaintiff Stephen S. Edwards' Motion to Strike 65 & 69 and for Rule 12(c) Judgment against Barclays Bank 72] is DENIED. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Nancy E. Brasel on 3/11/2019. (KMW) |
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 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.