Schwartz v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
| Bruce Schwartz |
| HSBC Bank USA, N.A. |
| 1:2014cv09525 |
| December 1, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Queens |
| Katherine Polk Failla |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1601 |
| Plaintiff |
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
70
OPINION AND ORDER. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion, pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 15(a), and Local Civil Rule 6.3, to reopen this case and vacate the judgment, and also for reconsideration of Schwartz II or alternatively to grant Pla intiff leave to file a TAC nunc pro tunc is DENIED. SO ORDERED. re: 65 MOTION to Reopen Case . MOTION to Vacate 64 Clerk's Judgment, . MOTION for Reconsideration re; 63 Memorandum & Opinion, . MOTION to Amend/Correct 48 Amended Complaint, nunc pro tunc filed by Bruce Schwartz. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/19/2017) (rjm)
|
|
Filing
63
OPINION AND ORDER re: 51 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed by HSBC Bank USA, N.A. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and close this case. (As further set forth in this Opinion and Order.) (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 1/9/2017) (mro)
|
|
Filing
38
OPINION AND ORDER re: 16 MOTION to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by HSBC Bank USA, N.A.: For the reasons stated in this Opinion, Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for the imposition of a late fee and i nterest charge in violation of TILA and for breach of contract is converted to a motion for summary judgment, and is GRANTED; its motion in the alternative to strike the start date for proposed Classes A and B is therefore DENIED AS MOOT. Its motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for APR disclosure violations under TILA is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 16. The parties are directed to appear for an initial pretrial conference on February 23, 20 16, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 618 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York. The parties are directed to submit a proposed case management plan and joint status letter no later than February 18, 2016, pursuant to the Court's Individual Rules of Civil Practice. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 2/9/2016) (tn)
|
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 Southern 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
| Search for this case: Schwartz v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Bruce Schwartz | |
| Represented By: | Brian Lewis Bromberg |
| Represented By: | Jonathan Robert Miller |
| Represented By: | Harley Jay Schnall |
| 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: HSBC Bank USA, N.A. | |
| 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.
