Nebel v. Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik, LLP
| Heather Nebel and Heather E. Maskrey |
| Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik, LLP and Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik LLP |
| 0:2021cv00659 |
| March 8, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| Michael J Davis |
| Katherine M Menendez |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 14, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 14
(Text Only) ORDER granting #7 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik LLP answer due 5/7/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez on 4/14/2021. (KAT)
|
| Filing 13 RESPONSE re #7 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint, filed by Heather Nebel.(Sheridan, Michael) |
|
Filing 12
(Text-Only) ORDER FOR PARTY TO FILE DOCUMENT/RESPOND TO COURT. The defendants have moved to extend the time to answer the complaint in this matter (ECF No. 7). The plaintiff has not consented. The deadline for that answer is hereby suspended while the Motion is being considered. The Court will not hold a hearing, but will resolve the request for additional time after receipt of the plaintiff's memorandum in opposition. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez on 4/12/2021. (KAT)
|
| Filing 11 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re #7 Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik LLP.(Newman, Patrick) |
| Filing 10 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re Extend Time to Respond to Complaint #7 Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer. (Newman, Patrick) |
| Filing 9 MEMORANDUM in Support re #7 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint, filed by Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik LLP.(Newman, Patrick) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION #7 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint, : Date and time to be determined. (Newman, Patrick) |
| Filing 7 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint, filed by Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik LLP. (Newman, Patrick) |
| Filing 6 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR-WILL REFILE. MEMORANDUM in Support re #4 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint, filed by Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik LLP.(Klobucar, Jeffrey) Modified text on 4/9/2021 (lmb). |
| Filing 5 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR-WILL REFILE. NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION #4 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint:Date and time to be determined. (Klobucar, Jeffrey) Modified text on 4/9/2021 (lmb). |
| Filing 4 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR-WILL REFILE. MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint, filed by Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik LLP. (Klobucar, Jeffrey) Modified text on 4/9/2021 (lmb). |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik, LLP. (KNK) |
| Filing 2 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: CLERK'S NOTICE OF INITIAL CASE ASSIGNMENT. Case assigned to Judge Michael J. Davis per 3rd, 4th - Master list, referred to Magistrate Judge Katherine M. Menendez. Please use case number 21-cv-659 (MJD/KMM). (KNK) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Rausch, Sturm, Israel, Enerson & Hornik, LLP (filing fee $ 402, receipt number AMNDC-8579289) filed by Heather Nebel. Filer requests summons issued. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Civil Cover Sheet) (Sheridan, Michael) Modified text on 3/9/2021 (MMP). |
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 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.
