D'Angelo v. Bank of Dene et al
Joseph D'Angelo |
Bank of Dene, Prime Business Services, Inc. and Michael Stephen Young |
2:2018cv00073 |
January 12, 2018 |
US District Court for the District of Nevada |
Las Vegas Office |
Cam Ferenbach |
Richard F. Boulware |
Racketeer/Corrupt Organization |
18 U.S.C. ยง 1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 43 DEFAULT JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff, Joseph D'Angelo, and against Defendant, Bank of Dene. Signed by Clerk of Court Debra K. Kempi on 7/5/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR) |
Filing 36 ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 34 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED in part as to Defendants Michael Stephen Young and Prime Business Services, Inc. and DENIED at this time as to Defendant Bank of Dene. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED tha t 35 Plaintiff's Request for Ruling on Unopposed Plaintiffs Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is instructed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants Young an d Prime Business Services. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has 30 days to seek entry of default against Bank of Dene or the Court will order the case dismissed without prejudice as to that defendant. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 6/17/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR) |
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.