Ditech Financial LLC et al v. Woodcrest Homeowners Association et al
| Ditech Financial LLC and Federal National Mortgage Association |
| Abacus 8 LLC, Absolute Collection Services, LLC and Woodcrest Homeowners Association |
| 2:2016cv02636 |
| November 15, 2016 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Las Vegas Office |
| Cam Ferenbach |
| Andrew P. Gordon |
| Real Property: Foreclosure |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Fed. Question |
| 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
55
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 40 the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. I FURTHER ORDER that the plaintiffs' alternative damages claims against defendants Woodcrest Homeowners Association and Absolute Collection Services, L LC are dismissed as moot. I FURTHER ORDER that 50 defendant Woodcrest Homeowners Association's motion for summary judgment is DENIED as moot. See Order for Details. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 6/9/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)
|
|
Filing
54
ORDER Granting 53 Stipulation to Stay Response Deadline Re: 50 Motion for Summary Judgment pending adjudication of 40 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 6/8/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC) Modified text on 6/8/2020 (MMM).
|
|
Filing
52
ORDER Granting 51 Stipulation for Extension of Time Re: 50 Motion for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 6/5/2020. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 5/15/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)
|
|
Filing
39
ORDER Granting 38 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Shane D. Cox from the case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Absolute Collection Services, LLC shall have until 1/21/20 to advise the Court if it will retain new counsel. IT IS FURTHER ORDE RED that the Clerk of the Court shall add the last known address of Defendants to the civil docket and send a copy of this Order to Defendants' last known address. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 12/19/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: Absolute Collection Services, LLC - ADR)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER Granting 27 First Stipulation for Extension of Time Re: 1 Complaint. Abacus 8 LLC's answer due 10/17/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts on 9/30/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER Granting 19 Motion to Lift Stay of Case. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 8/23/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER granting 16 Motion to Remove Attorney David A Markman from Electronic Service List. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 8/21/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
12
ORDER OF RECUSAL. This action is referred to the Clerk of Court for random reassignment to another Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 3/29/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER that case administratively STAYED until the Ninth Circuit issues the mandate in Bourne Valley Court Trust v. Wells Fargo Bank. Once the mandate issues, any party may move to lift the stay. Regardless of this stay, the Plaintiffs shall timely serve process upon the Defendants and file proof of service. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 11/17/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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 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.
