Rowe v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Antar Tariq Rowe |
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. |
2:2024cv00554 |
February 9, 2024 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
Elizabeth Preston Deavers |
Edmund A Sargus |
Chelsey M Vascura |
Michael H Watson |
Civil Rights: Jobs |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on March 25, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 11 ORDER granting #10 Defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.s Motion for an Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Edmund A. Sargus on 3/25/2024. (cmw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) |
Filing 10 MOTION for Extension of Time New date requested 3/29/2024. by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.. (Attachments: #1 Text of Proposed Order) (Strauss, Catherine) |
Filing 9 RESPONSE to Motion re #4 MOTION to Remand to State Court filed by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.. (Strauss, Catherine) |
Filing 8 RELATED CASE MEMORANDUM ORDER: The Judges agree that this case and case numbers 2:23cv3703 and 2:23cv1704 ARE related. Case reassigned to Judge Edmund A. Sargus and Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge Edmund A. Sargus and Judge Michael H. Watson on 2/12/2024. (mas)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) |
Filing 7 MOTION to Certify Question of State Law to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio by Plaintiff Antar Tariq Rowe. (mas) |
Filing 5 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. identifying Corporate Parent JPMorgan Chase & Co. (er) |
Filing 4 MOTION to Remand to State Court by Plaintiff Antar Tariq Rowe. (mas) |
Filing 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (originally filed in state court) by Plaintiff Antar Tariq Rowe. (mas) |
Filing 2 COMPLAINT with JURY DEMAND originally filed in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on 1/22/2024, case 24CV000527 by Antar Tariq Rowe against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (mas) |
Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, case number 24-CV-000527 ( Filing fee $ 405 paid - receipt number: AOHSDC-9813019), filed by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Complaint, Summons, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Supplemental Civil Cover Sheet, #4 Supplement Corporate Disclosure Statement) (Strauss, Catherine) |
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 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: Rowe v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 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: Antar Tariq Rowe | |
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: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. | |
Represented By: | Catherine L Strauss |
Represented By: | Masallay N. Komrabai-Kanu |
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.