Camacho-Villa et al v. Great Western Home Loans et al
Plaintiff: |
Jose Camacho-Villa and Michelle Camacho-Villa |
Defendant: |
First American Title Company, Great Western Home Loans, Indymac Mortgage Services, MTDS, Inc., Meridian Forclosure Service and Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. |
Case Number: |
3:2010cv00210 |
Filed: |
April 13, 2010 |
Court: |
US District Court for the District of Nevada |
Office: |
Reno Office |
Presiding Judge: |
Valerie P. Cooke |
Presiding Judge: |
Edward C. Reed |
Nature of Suit: |
Real Property: Foreclosure |
Cause of Action: |
28 U.S.C. § 1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure |
Jury Demanded By: |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Date Filed |
Document Text |
May 21, 2012 |
Filing
64
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that D IndyMac's 60 Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens is DENIED. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 5/21/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PM)
|
November 15, 2011 |
Filing
62
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO RULE 4(m) FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURES. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this action be, and hereby is dismissed without prejudice as to: MTDS, Inc. MTDS, Inc. terminated. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 11/15/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)
|
October 5, 2011 |
Filing
58
ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that P's 51 motion for leave to file an amended complaint is DENIED. FURTH ORD that D MERS' 46 motion to dismiss and its 47 request for judicial notice in support thereof are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 10/4/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PM)
|
March 23, 2011 |
Filing
43
ORDERED that D Indymac's # 27 Motion to dismiss is GRANTED. All of Ps' claims against Indymac that are under our jurisdiction are dismissed. This Order is not intended to refer to or rule upon any claim under the jurisdiction of the MDL c ourt. FURTHER ORD that D MERS's # 29 Motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice insofar as it is addressed to this Court. This Order is not intended to refer to or rule upon any claim under the jurisdiction of the MDL court. FURTHER ORD that P Jose Camacho- Villa's # 31 Second Motion to Remand is DENIED. FURTHER ORD that D MERS's # 37 Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending Decision on Motion to Remand is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 3/23/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
March 21, 2011 |
Filing
42
CERTIFIED COPY OF MDL ORDER FOR REMAND - Docket No. 09-2119-JAT. Motions to Remand Certain Claims are granted as follows: With respect to Yeghiyaian and Camacho-Villa claims 2, 5-9, and 13 and part of claims 3, 4, 10, 11 and 12 remain with the undersigned as part of the MDL and claim 1 and part of claims 3, 4, 10, 11 and 12 have been remanded to their respective transferor courts. (See order for additional specifics.) Signed by MDL Judge James A. Teilborg on 3/21/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)
|
July 12, 2010 |
Filing
25
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr, on 7/12/2010. By Deputy Clerk: Colleen Larsen. IT IS ORDERED that plainitffs' 22 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall have fourteen (14) days to file the amended complaint. FURTHER ORDERED that in light of the foregoing order, Motions 2 Motion to Remand, 8 Indymac Mortgage's Motion to Dismiss; and, 12 MERS' Motion to Dismiss are rendered moot and are DENIED. (Amended Complaint deadline: 7/26/2010.) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)
|
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
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?