Peoples National Bank, N.A. v. Mehlman et al
Plaintiff: |
Peoples National Bank, N.A. |
Defendant: |
Debra J Mehlman, Mark S Mehlman, Mehlman Homes Realty, LLC, Mark S. Mehlman Homes, LLC, Mark S. Mehlman Realty, Inc., Scott Mehlman and Blair Mehlman |
Case Number: |
4:2015cv00996 |
Filed: |
June 24, 2015 |
Court: |
US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri |
Office: |
St. Louis Office |
County: |
Within US but Outside District |
Presiding Judge: |
Audrey G. Fleissig |
Nature of Suit: |
Other Fraud |
Cause of Action: |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
Jury Demanded By: |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Date Filed |
Document Text |
November 18, 2016 |
Filing
84
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion (Doc. No. 82 ) for leave to file an amended complaint is GRANTED. The Clerk's Office is directed to detach the proposed amended complaint (Doc. 82-1) and docket it as Pl aintiff's First Amended Complaint. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall obtain prompt service of process on the newly-named Defendants, and shall notify the Court when all newlynamed Defendants have been served. Within ten days of an answer or other responsive pleading by these Defendants, the parties shall file a new joint proposed scheduling plan for the continued litigation of the case. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on November 18, 2016. (BRP)
|
June 7, 2016 |
Filing
75
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion to quash is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 65 .) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to compel, as further limited by Plaintiffs memorandum, is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 68 .) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before June 17, 2016, the parties shall submit a joint proposed scheduling plan for the continued litigation of this case. Only one proposed scheduling plan may be submitted, and it must be signed by counsel for all p arties. It will be the responsibility of counsel for Plaintiff to actually submit the joint proposed scheduling plan to the Court. If the parties cannot agree as to any matter required to be contained in the joint plan, the disagreement must be set out clearly in the joint proposal, and the Court will resolve the dispute. ( Joint Scheduling Plan due by 6/17/2016.). Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 6/7/2016. (NEB)
|
January 28, 2016 |
Filing
63
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants motion for entry of a protective order (Doc. No. 58) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs proposed version of the protective order shall be entered in this case by separate document. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 01/28/2016. (KCB)
|
December 9, 2015 |
Filing
57
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants motion to quash the discovery subpoenas noted above is DENIED. (Doc. No. 51.) At Defendants request, the parties shall confer and attempt to reach an agreement on a protective order to pr otect confidential information. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, Defendants may submit a proposed protective order, on or before December 15, 2015, for the Courts consideration. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 12/09/2015. (KCB)
|
October 21, 2015 |
Filing
40
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED. (Doc. No. 19 .) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion for limited expedited discovery is DENIED. (Doc. No. 21 .) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 10/21/2015. (NEB)
|
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 Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?