Bash v. Porter et al
Plaintiff: Brian A. Bash
Defendant: Timothy Porter and Nina Porter
Case Number: 5:2012cv02017
Filed: August 6, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Office: Akron Office
County: Summit
Presiding Judge: Patricia A Gaughan
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Withdrawl
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 0157
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on November 9, 2012. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
November 9, 2012 Filing 5 Certificate of Judgment for Registration in Another District issued electronically to counsel on 11/9/2012 as to Timothy Porter and Nina Porter in the amount of $205,997.77. (Attachments: #1 Judgment Entry) (B,B)
November 9, 2012 Filing 4 Praecipe for issuance of Certificate of Judgment for Registration in Another District . $ 11.00 certification fee paid, receipt number 0647-5682104 filed by Brian A. Bash. (Osburn, Alexis)
September 17, 2012 Filing 3 Returned Mail addressed to Nina Porter and Timothy Porter. Envelopes marked Return to Sender Unable to Forward. Related document(s) #2 . (B,R)
August 31, 2012 Copy of #2 mailed to Nina Porter and Timothy Porter at 12668 East 116th Street, #128 on 8/31/12. (LC,S)
August 30, 2012 Filing 2 Judgment Entry: This Court hereby ACCEPTS the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law In Support of Entry of Default, and hereby enters judgment as follows: a) On Counts I and II of the Complaint in this matter, the Court enters judgment finding that the Transfers that are the subject of the Complaint, as listed on Exhibit A to the Complaint, are avoidable as fraudulent transfers under 11 U.S.C. 544, 550 and 551, Ohio's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (Ohio Revised Code 1336.01, et seq.) and Indiana's Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (Indiana Code 32-18-2-1, et seq.); and b) On Counts I and II of the Complaint in this matter, the Court enters judgment in favor of the Trustee and against the Defendants in the amount of $205,997.77; and c) On all Counts, post-judgment interest is awarded on the judgment as specified in 28 U.S.C. 1961. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 8/31/12. (LC,S) re #1
August 6, 2012 Filing 1 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Support of Entry of Judgment by Default. Honorable Marilyn Shea-Stonum on 08/02/2012. (Attachments: #1 USBC Docket Sheet, Adversary Proceedings Case 12-5063, #2 USBC Transmittal Sheet)(M,TL)
August 6, 2012 Judge Patricia A. Gaughan assigned to case. (M,TL)

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 Ohio Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Bash v. Porter et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Timothy Porter
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: Nina Porter
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: Brian A. Bash
Represented By: Alexis C. Beachdell
Represented By: David F. Proano
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?