Manuel et al v. Gembala et al
| Michael Manuel and Dorothy Manuel |
| Joseph A Gembala, III, Joseph A Gembala III & Associates, Secure Property Solutions LLC, Custom Asset Solutions LLC and National Mortgage Consultants Group LLC |
| 7:2010cv00004 |
| January 14, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Southern Division Office |
| BLADEN |
| Louise Wood Flanagan |
| Racketeer/Corrupt Organization |
| 18 U.S.C. ยง 1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act |
| 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
104
JUDGMENT - Signed by Julie A. Richards, Clerk of Court on 11/14/2013. (Baker, C.)
|
|
Filing
103
ORDER granting 102 Motion for Voluntary Dismissal - Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 11/12/2013. (Baker, C.)
|
|
Filing
101
ORDER denying 85 Motion for Summary Judgment and denying without prejudice 90 Motion to Certify Class - Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), the court gives NOTICE to plaintiffs that, on the basis of the undisputed facts as set fo rth herein, and on the basis of other materials presently in the record, the court may grant summary judgment for defendant. The court DIRECTS plaintiffs to show cause within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this order why summary judgment shall not be granted for defendant. Defendant will have fourteen (14) days of plaintiffs' response to file a reply, if any. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 10/10/2013. (Baker, C.)
|
|
Filing
80
ORDER granting 69 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying 71 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; and, adopting 79 Memorandum and Recommendations - The second amended complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice as to defendants Joseph A. Gembala, III and Joseph A. Gembala, III & Associates. Where the motion to dismiss by defendant Michael Malone is denied, this case requires scheduling order to be entered. The parties are ordered to hold the rule 26(f) conference on or before twenty-one (21) days from entry of this order. The joint report and plan shall be filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after the conference. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 9/7/2012. (Baker, C.)
|
|
Filing
64
ORDER granting 51 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint and denying without prejudice as premature 53 Amended Motion to Certify Class - Default previously entered against Custom Asset Solutions, LLC and Christopher Frisch is set aside. Counsel are directed to read Order in its entirety for critical information. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 7/27/11. (Tripp, S.)
|
|
Filing
50
ORDER denying 9 Motion to Appoint Receiver; granting 13 Motion to Dismiss and denying 13 Motion to Strike; and, denying 27 Motion to Certify Class. In addition, defendant SPS and defendant NMCG are DISMISSED from thisaction. Because only the Gembala defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claims, the dispositive nature of this order is limited to plaintiffs' claims as against the Gembala defendants. This order does not dispose of plaintiffs' claims against defendant Malone . Said defendant shall have fourteen (14) days from date of entry of this order to file any supplement to plaintiff's report and plan, earlier filed jointly with the Gembala defendants 42 , now dismissed from this action. Thereafter, the court will enter its case management order. Signed by Chief Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 09/30/10. Copies served. (Baker, C.)
|
|
Filing
41
ENTRY OF DEFAULT AS TO DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER FRISCH- Signed by Clerk of Court on 07/28/2010. (Baker, C.)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- 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.
