BancorpSouth Bank v. RWM Properties II, LLC et al
| BancorpSouth Bank |
| RWM Properties II, LLC and Ronald W Moore |
| 4:2011cv00373 |
| February 25, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
| St. Louis Office |
| St. Louis - County |
| Jean C. Hamilton |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
127
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 95 ORDERED that Plaintiffs Petition for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (ECF No. 95) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Plaintiff is awarded $45,512.50 for attorney's fees and $19.32 for costs. FURTHER ORDERED that Michael Daming is jointly liable for such fees and costs incurred up to the date of his withdrawal as counsel on October 15, 2012, that Nicholas Klumb and David Wasinger are jointly liable for such fees and costs incurred up to the date of their withdrawal as counsel on November 21, 2012, and that Defendant Ronald Moore is liable for such fees and costs incurred up to the date of the Order on December 13, 2012.. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 4/18/13. (CEL)
|
|
Filing
62
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 60 48 ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants/Judgment Debtors to Comply with Post-Judgment Discovery Requests (ECF No. 48) is GRANTED, and Defendants are ordered to provide complete responses to Plaint iff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents directed to Defendant RWM and Defendant Moore, respectively, by Thursday, September 20, 2012. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' objections to Plaintiff's post-judgment disco very requests pursuant to "[their] right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Missouri Constitution, and any other applicable law" are overruled. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Its Motion to Compel by Interlineation and Motion for Oral Argument (ECF No. 60) is DENIED as moot. Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 9/10/12. (CEL)
|
|
Filing
47
ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Approval of Its Litigation Expenses and Attorneys Fees Recoverable Under the Terms of Its Promissory Note and Guaranty is GRANTED to the extent that the Court will order Defendants RWM Properties, II, LLC and Ronald Moore to pay Plaintiffs filing fee in the amount of $350.00. Plaintiffs Motion for Approval of ItsLitigation Expenses and Attorneys Fees Recoverable Under the Terms of Its Promissory Note and Guaranty is DENIED in all other respects. 38 Signed by Honorable Jean C. Hamilton on 12/16/11. (CLA)
|
|
Filing
44
ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants are granted until Wednesday, December 7, 2011, within which to file a response to Plaintiffs Motion for Approval of Its Litigation Expenses and Attorneys Fees Recoverable Under the Terms of Its Promissory Note and Guaranty. (ECF No. 38). Failure to do so may result in the Courts ruling on Plaintiffs unopposed motion. Response to Court due by 12/7/2011. Signed by Honorable Jean C. Hamilton on 11/23/11. (CLA)
|
|
Filing
37
JUDGMENT IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiffs Motion forSummary Judgment on Counts I and II is GRANTED. Signed by Honorable Jean C. Hamilton on 10/14/11. (CLA)
|
|
Filing
34
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 21 ORDERED that Plaintiff Bancorpsouth Banks Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts I and II of its Amended Petition (Doc. No. 21) is GRANTED. Signed by Honorable Jean C. Hamilton on 9/23/11. (CEL)
|
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 Missouri Eastern 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.
