JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC et al
| JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. |
| Antelope Homeowners' Association, Elizabeth Rocha, Horatio Rocha and SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC |
| 2:2017cv00326 |
| February 2, 2017 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Las Vegas Office |
| Nancy J. Koppe |
| James C. Mahan |
| Constitutional - State Statute |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 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
83
DEFAULT JUDGMENT in favor of SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC against Elizabeth and Horatio Rocha. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/25/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
|
|
Filing
81
ORDER the court will disburse to Chase the $500 security bond plus interest. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/15/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF, cc: Finance - JM)
|
|
Filing
80
ORDER granting 78 Motion for Default Judgment. FURTHER ORDERED that SFR shall prepare and submit to the court a proposed judgment consistent with the foregoing within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/8/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
76
ORDER granting 74 Stipulation of Dismissal and 75 Stipulation to Lift Stay. This Stipulation in no way affects SFR's cross-claim against Elizabeth Rocha or Horatio Rocha. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/14/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM) Modified on 12/14/2018 to correct typo (MMM).
|
|
Filing
73
ORDER granting 72 Stipulation to Stay Entire Case Pending Settlement. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/23/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
70
ORDER that 35 the HOA's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED that 41 SFR's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/15/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
66
ORDER that 65 Stipulation to Stay Discovery is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/12/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
62
ORDER that 61 Stipulation to Stay Discovery is DENIED without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/17/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
48
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that no later than 10/27/17 either motions for default or dismissal papers must be filed for each of the claims and cross-claims against Defendants Elizabeth and Horatio Rocha. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/13/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
|
|
Filing
37
ORDER Granting 36 Stipulation to Extend Time re 35 MOTION to Dismiss . ( Responses due by 9/29/2017.) Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/7/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
|
|
Filing
25
ORDER that 21 Motion for demand for security of costs is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall post security in the amount of $500.00 within seven (7) days of the entry of this order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/26/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER Granting Defendant's 11 Motion for Demand for Security of Costs. Plaintiff shall post security in the amount of $500.00 within seven (7) days of the entry of this order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 5/25/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
|
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 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.
