Wheat v. Chase Bank, JP Morgan et al
| Wayne L Wheat |
| Chase Bank, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Matthew Cox and Unknown Officers and Employees of Chase Bank, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. |
| 3:2011cv00309 |
| August 30, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| MONTGOMERY |
| Walter H Rice |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1981 |
| Both |
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
89
ENTRY SUSTAINING THE MOTION TO REDACT TRANSCRIPT (DOC.# 83 ) FILED BY DEFENDANT JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; ORDERTO THE CLERK AND THE COURT REPORTER. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 4/1/2015. (ead1)
|
|
Filing
71
CLERK'S JUDGMENT with Attached Notice of Disposal. Signed on 02/04/2014. (pb1)
|
|
Filing
70
DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. # 24 ) OF DEFENDANTS CHASE BANK, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A., CHASE INVESTMENT SERVICES CORPORATION, AND MATTHEW COX; GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF ALL DEFENDANTS ON PLAINTIFF'S FEDERAL CLAIMS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (COUNT ONE), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (COUNT TWO), AND PLAINTIFF'S OHIO COMMON LAW CLAIM FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (COUNT FIVE); GRANTING SUMM ARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS CHASE BANK, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A. AND MATTHEW COX ON ALL CLAIMS; DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING IN A STATE COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT (COUNT THREE) AND CONVERSION (COUNT FOUR) AGAINST DEFENDANT CHASE INVESTMENT SERVICES CORPORATION; STRIKING ALL AMENDMENTS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. # 46 ), WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE NAMING OF CHASE INVESTMENT SERVICES CORPORATION AS A DEFENDANT; OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY (DOC. # 53 ), CONSTRUED AS A MOTION UNDER RULE 56(d) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE; OVERRULING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE (DOC. # 62 , DOC. # 63 , DOC. # 64 , DOC. # 65 , & DOC. # 66 ); JUDGMENT TO ENTER IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF; TERMINATION ENTRY. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 02/03/14. (pb1)
|
|
Filing
54
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD BEFORE THE COURT BY FILING, WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS FROM DATE, EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PLAINTIFF'S FACTUAL POSITIONS, INCLUDING THE DEPOSITION OF JOHN LUMPKIN. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 8/22/2013. (jdf1)
|
|
Filing
44
DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING PLAINTIFF'S LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT (DOC. 41 ), OVERRULING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. 24 ), AND OVERRULING AS MOOT VARIOUS MOTIONS OF PLAINTIFF (DOC. 21 & DOC. 34 ); PLAINTIFF IS GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION AND ENTRY; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE SET. Scheduling Conference set for 3/7/2013 03:15 PM in Teleconference before Judge Walter H Rice.Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 2/22/2013. (kf)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 28 ), AND CLARIFYING THE COURTS AUGUST 24, 2012 ORDER. Based upon the foregoing, Defendants motion for reconsideration (doc. 28 ) is DENIED. Additionally, the Court clarifies its August 24, 2012 Order (doc. 27 ) as follows: 1) The cut-off date for Plaintiff to respond to Defendants motion for summary judgment is STAYED until Judge Rice rules on Plaintiffs objections (docs. 19 , 21 ); 2) Starting the day after Judge Rice rules on Plai ntiffs objections, Plaintiff shall have 24 days to respond to Defendants motion for summary judgment; and 3) The time in which Defendants may file their summary judgment reply brief, if they so choose to file one, will be calculated from the day Plaintiff files his response in opposition, and in accordance with the time permitted by the Courts Local Rules. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 09/06/2012. (kf) Modified on 9/7/2012 to correct date filed (kf).
|
|
Filing
17
ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions (Doc. 9 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 7/3/12. (kje1)
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER re 9 MOTION to Compel: To the extent Defends wish to file a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs motion to compel discovery, they are ORDERED do so by June 15, 2012. Defendants are also GRANTED leave to file under seal any exhibits to their memorandum in opposition. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 06/08/2012. (kf)
|
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.
