Reaves v. Seterus, Inc.

Reaves v. Seterus, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Margaret Reaves
Defendant:	Seterus, Inc.
Case Number:	5:2015cv00033
Filed:	January 20, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
Office:	Western Division Office
County:	WAKE
Presiding Judge:	Louise Wood Flanagan
Nature of Suit:	Foreclosure
Cause of Action:	15 U.S.C. § 1692
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
May 20, 2015	Filing 26 JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED in accordance with the court's order entered May 20, 2015, and for the reasons set forth more specifically therein, that defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff shall have and recover nothing from this action. Signed by Julie Richards Johnston, Clerk of Court on 05/20/2015. (Baker, C.)
March 4, 2015	Filing 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION Memorializing Ruling from 03/02/2015 Motion Hearing - Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and defendant's motion for a more definite statement is GRANTED. (DE 4). The court CONSTRUES plaintiff' s motion to stay as a motion for temporary restraining order and the same is DENIED. (DE 9). Plaintiff has 60 days within which to effect service of a more particularized complaint upon this defendant. In the event foreclosure is authorized, and a sale scheduled, without commenting on likelihood of success, the court notes nothing in this order precludes plaintiff from renewal of a request for injunctive relief. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 03/03/2015. (Baker, C.)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 20, 2015

Filing 26 JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED in accordance with the court's order entered May 20, 2015, and for the reasons set forth more specifically therein, that defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff shall have and recover nothing from this action. Signed by Julie Richards Johnston, Clerk of Court on 05/20/2015. (Baker, C.)

March 4, 2015

Filing 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION Memorializing Ruling from 03/02/2015 Motion Hearing - Defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and defendant's motion for a more definite statement is GRANTED. (DE 4). The court CONSTRUES plaintiff' s motion to stay as a motion for temporary restraining order and the same is DENIED. (DE 9). Plaintiff has 60 days within which to effect service of a more particularized complaint upon this defendant. In the event foreclosure is authorized, and a sale scheduled, without commenting on likelihood of success, the court notes nothing in this order precludes plaintiff from renewal of a request for injunctive relief. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 03/03/2015. (Baker, C.)

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 North Carolina Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Reaves v. Seterus, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Seterus, Inc.
Represented By:	Ryan Lee Beaver
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 ]
Plaintiff: Margaret Reaves
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?