Roadhouse et al v. Patenaude & Felix, APC

Defendant: Patenaude & Felix, APC
Plaintiff: Scott Roadhouse and Trina Roadhouse
Case Number: 2:2013cv00560
Filed: April 1, 2013
Court: Nevada District Court
Office: Las Vegas Office
Referring Judge: Carl W. Hoffman
Presiding Judge: Gloria M. Navarro
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
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
September 30, 2016 97 Opinion or Order of the Court JUDGMENT on Attorney Fees. Plaintiffs Trina and Scott Roadhouse are awarded $83,437.50 in attorneys fees against Defendant Patenaude &Felix, A.P.C. Signed by Clerk of Court, Lance S. Wilson on 9/30/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DL)
August 10, 2016 89 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Granting 85 MOTION for Attorney Fees. Motions due by 9/8/2016. Granting 88 Stipulation For Extension of Time (Second Request). Replies due by 9/19/2016. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 8/10/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DL)
January 15, 2016 78 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Granting 77 Stipulation to Continue. Calendar Call reset for 4/25/2016 at 09:00 AM in LV Courtroom 7D before Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro. Jury Trial reset for 5/2/2016 at 08:30 AM in LV Courtroom 7D before Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 1/15/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)
November 24, 2015 65 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Granting 64 Stipulation to Continue Deadline to Respond re 55 MOTION in Limine #1, 56 MOTION in Limine #2, 57 MOTION in Limine #3, 58 MOTION in Limine #4, 59 MOTION in Limine #5, 60 MOTION in Limine #6, and 61 MOTION in Limine #7. Responses due by 12/2/2015. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 11/24/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)
October 20, 2015 63 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Granting 62 Stipulation to Continue Deadline re 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 MOTIONs in Limine. Responses due by 11/25/2015. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 10/20/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)
July 6, 2015 52 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Granting 51 Stipulation to Continue Deadline for Submitting Proposed Pre-Trial Order. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 7/13/2015. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 7/6/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)
April 28, 2015 48 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Granting 47 Stipulation to Continue Settlement Conference and Deadline for Submitting the Proposed Joint Pretrial Order. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 7/6/2015. Settlement Conference reset for 6/26/15 in the chambers of Magistrate Judge CW Hoffman, Jr., Room 3014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 4/28/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)
April 14, 2015 42 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER that 33 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 38 Motion to Postpone Ruling is DENIED as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/14/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)
June 23, 2014 26 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Granting 10 Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses as to 8 Answer to Complaint. Defendant's first, second, third, fifth, sixth, eighth, tenth, and thirteenth affirmative defenses are hereby stricken. Defendant shall file an Amended answer that cures the defects identified in this Order by 7/7/14. Failure to file an Amended Answer by this date shall result in Defendant being barred from raising these affirmative defenses in this action. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 6/23/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)
April 2, 2014 22 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Denying without prejudice 14 Defendant's Motion to File First Amended Answer. Defendant shall file motion by 4/11/14. Plaintiff shall have until 4/18/14 to respond. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that stipulated discovery Plan/Scheduling Order due by 4/18/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 4/2/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)
November 4, 2013 20 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Granting 11 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Allow the Late Filing by Seven Minutes of Their 10 Motion to Strike Answer. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 11/04/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

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

Search for this case: Roadhouse et al v. Patenaude & Felix, APC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Patenaude & Felix, APC
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Scott Roadhouse
Represented By: Craig B. Friedberg
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Trina Roadhouse
Represented By: Craig B. Friedberg
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 [ 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?