Kochel v. Target National Bank et al
| Pamela T. Kochel |
| Target National Bank and Capital One Bank (U.S.A.), N.A. |
| 3:2010cv00384 |
| October 18, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| MONTGOMERY |
| Michael R Merz |
| Thomas M Rose |
| Banks and Banking |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
| None |
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
11
ORDER - This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel to assist her in this case (Doc. No. 6). The Court is without authority to appoint counsel to serve pro bono. Because this is a commercial case, Plaintiff m ay wish to contact the Volunteer Lawyers Project at the Dayton Bar Association directly for possible assistance. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), service of process must be accomplished within 120 days of filing the Complaint, or not later than February 15, 2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 12/1/2010. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER - First of all, on November 8, 2010, the Court struck Plaintiff's Notice of Removal and ordered Plaintiff to file with this Court, not later than November 15, 2010, a certificate that she had filed a copy of that Order with each of the sta te courts from which a removal had been attempted. No such certificate has been filed. The Court takes this extremely seriously as a Notice of Removal interferes with the ordinary process of the state courts. Therefore the required certificate must b e filed forthwith. If it is not, Plaintiff may be found in contempt of court for failure to obey a direct order. Second, Plaintiff has asked for a list of incoming phone calls to her number 937-236-2305 from her telephone company, AT&T (Doc. No. 8). AT&T is not a party to this case and no discovery in the case has been scheduled because, so far as the docket shows, there has been no service on the parties. Plaintiff should request this list from AT&T. If they decline to provide it without a court order, the Plaintiff may apply to the Court for such an order after service on the other parties and a scheduling conference. The present request is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 11/23/2010. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
7
DECISION AND ORDER - The Notice of Removal is STRICKEN. Plaintiff is ordered to file a copy of this Order with any state court with which she has filed the Notices of Removal and to file a certificate with this Court not later than November 15, 2010, that she has done so. She is likewise ordered to serve a copy of this Order on counsel for the plaintiff in each of the state court cases. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 11/5/2010. (kpf1)
|
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
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.
