Williams v. Union Federal Credit Union
| Thomas Lamont Williams |
| Union Federal Credit Union and Juan De Alba Villegas |
| 3:2022cv00472 |
| October 25, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Craig S Denney |
| Miranda M Du |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 28, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/28/2022. The Court has reviewed Defendant Union Federal Credit Union's response (ECF No. #8 ) to its order to show cause why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (ECF No. #5 ) and is satisfied that it has federal question jurisdiction to preside over this case. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NYL) |
| Filing 12 Joint STATUS REPORT by Defendants Juan De Alba Villegas, Union Federal Credit Union.. (Mann, Daniel) |
| Filing 11 JOINDER to #1 Petition for Removal,, by Defendant Juan De Alba Villegas.. (Flynn, Sean) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Non Opposition to Defendant's Motion for More Definite Statement by Union Federal Credit Union re #6 Motion for More Definite Statement.. (Flynn, Sean) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Sean Flynn on behalf of Defendant Juan De Alba Villegas. (sued herein as Juan Doe) (Flynn, Sean) |
| Filing 8 RESPONSE to #5 Order to Show Cause by Defendant Union Federal Credit Union.. (Flynn, Sean) |
| Filing 7 STATEMENT REGARDING REMOVAL by Defendant Union Federal Credit Union.. (Flynn, Sean) |
| Filing 6 MOTION for More Definite Statement by Defendant Union Federal Credit Union. Responses due by 11/15/2022. (Attachments: #1 Declaration)(Flynn, Sean) |
Filing 5
ORDER - It is therefore ordered that, within 15 days from the entry of this order, Defendant must show cause in writing why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It is further ordered that Plaintiff must file a response to Defendant's response to the order to show cause within another 14 days. The Court will not permit a reply. (Show Cause Response due by 11/11/2022.) Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/27/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - CJS)
|
| Filing 4 CIVIL STANDING ORDER of U.S. Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HJ) |
| Filing 3 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/26/2022. Statement regarding removed action is due by 11/10/2022. Joint Status Report regarding removed action is due by 11/25/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - HKL) |
| Case randomly assigned to Chief Judge Miranda M. Du and Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney. (HKL) |
| Filing 2 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties by Union Federal Credit Union. There are no known interested parties other than those participating in the case. (Flynn, Sean) |
| Filing 1 PETITION FOR REMOVAL from Small Claims Court of Reno Township, Case Number RSC2022-000841, (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ANVDC-7093395) by Union Federal Credit Union. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Notice of Lodgment) (Flynn, Sean) NOTICE of Certificate of Interested Parties requirement: Under Local Rule 7.1-1, a party must immediately file its disclosure statement with its first appearance, pleading, petition, motion, response, or other request addressed to the court. |
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 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.
