Marshall v. Collecto, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: Roger Marshall
Defendant: Collecto, Inc. doing business as EOS CCA and US Asset Management, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2021cv02585
Filed: May 8, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Presiding Judge: Brian M Cogan
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on June 18, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
June 18, 2021 Filing 15 NOTICE of Settlement as to all Defendants by Collecto, Inc., US Asset Management, Inc. (Johnson, Matthew)
June 18, 2021 Filing 14 Corporate Disclosure Statement by US Asset Management, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent EOS Holdings (USA) Inc. for US Asset Management, Inc.. (Johnson, Matthew)
June 18, 2021 Filing 13 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Collecto, Inc. identifying Corporate Parent EOS Holdings (USA) Inc. for Collecto, Inc.. (Johnson, Matthew)
June 18, 2021 Filing 12 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew Brady Johnson on behalf of Collecto, Inc., US Asset Management, Inc. (aty to be noticed) (Johnson, Matthew)
June 18, 2021 Opinion or Order ORDER DISMISSING CASE. The Court having been advised that this matter has settled, the case is dismissed, subject to reinstatement at the request of any party within 45 days. The Court retains jurisdiction to So Order any settlement documents if they are filed within this period. Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 6/18/2021. (Cogan, Brian)
June 17, 2021 Filing 11 Letter Joint Letter in connection with Initial Conference by Roger Marshall (Barshay, David)
June 17, 2021 Filing 10 Letter Joint Letter in connection with Initial Status Conference by Roger Marshall (Barshay, David)
June 17, 2021 Opinion or Order Order striking #10 . This is not a joint letter. Correspondence between counsel should not be filed with the Court. Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 6/17/2021. (Clarke, Melonie)
June 17, 2021 Opinion or Order Order re: #11 . This "joint letter" is wholly inadequate. Plaintiff's portion is inadequate because there are third parties to whom communication may be made. Plaintiff has not advised the Court who the third party is nor why the communication is not permitted under the statute. As to defendants, first of all, the letter does not disclose which of the two defendants counsel is representing. Nor does it disclose its role in the challenged transaction. The parties are directed to file a supplemental letter forthwith that says something; failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions on one or both sides under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f). Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 6/17/2021. (Clarke, Melonie)
June 2, 2021 Filing 9 Proposed Scheduling Order by Roger Marshall (Barshay, David)
June 2, 2021 Filing 8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Roger Marshall. US Asset Management, Inc. served on 6/1/2021, answer due 6/22/2021. (Barshay, David)
June 2, 2021 Filing 7 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Roger Marshall. Collecto, Inc. waiver sent on 6/2/2021, answer due 8/2/2021. (Barshay, David)
May 19, 2021 Filing 6 NOTICE Designating Case To Arbitration. This case has been designated to participate in the Court Annexed Arbitration Program pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.7(d) which requires the Clerk of Court to designate and process for compulsory arbitration all civil cases (excluding social security cases, tax matters, prisoners' civil rights cases, and any action based on an alleged violation of a right secured by the Constitution of the United States or if jurisdiction is based in whole or in part on Title 28 U.S.C. sec. 1343) wherein money damages only are being sought in an amount not in excess of $150,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs. Damages are presumed not to be in excess of the arbitration limit unless a certification is filed in accordance with Local Civil Rule 83.7(d)(3). (Credle, Rita)
May 19, 2021 CASE REFERRED to Arbitration. (Credle, Rita)
May 19, 2021 Opinion or Order ORDER re: #6 Notice Designating Case To Arbitration. Counsel is advised that this designation will not affect nor delay the Initial Status Conference scheduled for 6/22/2021 and the submission of the mandatory requirements at #5 . Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 5/19/2021. (Weisberg, Peggy)
May 10, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 5 SCHEDULING ORDER: A telephonic Initial Status Conference is set for 6/22/2021 at 12:45 pm. Parties will use the toll-free number 888-684-8852, access code 6427877# and security code 2585#. The parties are directed to comply with the attached mandatory requirements including filing on the docket a completed case management plan prior to the conference. Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 5/10/2021. (Weisberg, Peggy)
May 10, 2021 Filing 4 This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (Bowens, Priscilla)
May 10, 2021 Filing 3 In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent a United States magistrate judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to the Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. The form may also be accessed at the following link: #http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO085.pdf. You may withhold your consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent. (Bowens, Priscilla)
May 10, 2021 Filing 2 Summons Issued as to All Defendants. (Attachments: #1 US Asset summons) (Bowens, Priscilla)
May 8, 2021 Case Assigned to Judge Brian M. Cogan. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (Bowens, Priscilla)
May 8, 2021 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Collecto, Inc. d/b/a EOS CCA, US Asset Management, Inc. filing fee $ 402, receipt number ANYEDC-14452059 Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -NO,, filed by Roger Marshall. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Proposed Summons, #4 Proposed Summons) (Barshay, David)

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 New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Marshall v. Collecto, Inc. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Roger Marshall
Represented By: David M. Barshay
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Collecto, Inc. doing business as EOS CCA
Represented By: Matthew Brady Johnson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: US Asset Management, Inc.
Represented By: Matthew Brady Johnson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?