Dittmer Properties, L.P. v. FDIC, as Receiver for Premier Bank, Jefferson City, Missouri et al

Justia Dockets & Filings Eighth Circuit Missouri Western District Dittmer Properties, L.P. v. FDIC, as Receiver for Premier Bank, Jefferson City, Missouri et al

Dittmer Properties, L.P. v. FDIC, as Receiver for Premier Bank, Jefferson City, Missouri et al

Plaintiff:	Dittmer Properties, L.P.
Defendant:	FDIC, as Receiver for Premier Bank, Jefferson City, Missouri and Cathy Richards, Successor Trustee of the Peters Family Trust u.t.a. Restated September 27, 2007, Assignee of a Fifty Percent General Partnership Interest in Barkley Center General Partnership Derived Origin
Case Number:	2:2011cv04011
Filed:	January 11, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the Western District of Missouri
Office:	Jefferson City Office
County:	Boone
Presiding Judge:	Fernando J. Gaitan
Nature of Suit:	All Other Real Property
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1441
Jury Demanded By:	Both

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
January 27, 2012	Filing 109 ORDER - the Motion to Renew or Reactivate Case 24 is GRANTED, and the stay of this case is lifted. FDIC's Motion to Reconsider Motion to Dismiss 25 is GRANTED, and all of plaintiff's claims against the FDIC are DISMISSED. Plaintiff' ;s Motion for Leave to Add Plaintiffs and to File a Second Amended Complaint 26 is DENIED; Defendant Richards' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 27 is DENIED AS MOOT; Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Add Plaintiffs and to File a Second Amended Complaint 38 is DENIED; the Joint Motion to Consolidate Cases 53 is DENIED; the Motion to Withdraw the Motion to Consolidate 57 is DENIED AS MOOT; Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate Cases 58 is DENIED; the FDIC's Motion to Su bstitute Defendant 59 is DENIED AS MOOT, and the FDIC's Motion for Trial to the Court 106 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed on 1/27/12 by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda). Modified on 1/27/2012 to note - The Court remands to the Boone County Circuit Court plaintiff's remaining state law claims against Cathy Richards. (Enss, Rhonda).
June 28, 2011	Filing 22 ORDER denying 7 defendant FDIC's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and the Court STAYS the proceedings pending the exhaustion of Plaintiff's claims through the administrative claims process and DENIES the Plaintiff's Motion to Realign Defendant Richards as a Party-Plaintiff 11 . Signed on 6/29/10 by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 27, 2012

Filing 109 ORDER - the Motion to Renew or Reactivate Case 24 is GRANTED, and the stay of this case is lifted. FDIC's Motion to Reconsider Motion to Dismiss 25 is GRANTED, and all of plaintiff's claims against the FDIC are DISMISSED. Plaintiff' ;s Motion for Leave to Add Plaintiffs and to File a Second Amended Complaint 26 is DENIED; Defendant Richards' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 27 is DENIED AS MOOT; Plaintiff's Amended Motion to Add Plaintiffs and to File a Second Amended Complaint 38 is DENIED; the Joint Motion to Consolidate Cases 53 is DENIED; the Motion to Withdraw the Motion to Consolidate 57 is DENIED AS MOOT; Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate Cases 58 is DENIED; the FDIC's Motion to Su bstitute Defendant 59 is DENIED AS MOOT, and the FDIC's Motion for Trial to the Court 106 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed on 1/27/12 by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda). Modified on 1/27/2012 to note - The Court remands to the Boone County Circuit Court plaintiff's remaining state law claims against Cathy Richards. (Enss, Rhonda).

June 28, 2011

Filing 22 ORDER denying 7 defendant FDIC's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and the Court STAYS the proceedings pending the exhaustion of Plaintiff's claims through the administrative claims process and DENIES the Plaintiff's Motion to Realign Defendant Richards as a Party-Plaintiff 11 . Signed on 6/29/10 by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda)

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

Search for this case: Dittmer Properties, L.P. v. FDIC, as Receiver for Premier Bank, Jefferson City, Missouri et al
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: FDIC, as Receiver for Premier Bank, Jefferson City, Missouri
Represented By:	William L. Sauerwein
Represented By:	Anne J Kelly
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: Cathy Richards, Successor Trustee of the Peters Family Trust u.t.a. Restated September 27, 2007, Assignee of a Fifty Percent General Partnership Interest in Barkley Center General Partnership Derived Origin
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 ]
Plaintiff: Dittmer Properties, L.P.
Represented By:	Thomas M Schneider
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?