Chancey v. Washington Mutual Asset-Backed Certificates WMABS Series 2007-HE2 Trust Issuing Entity et al
Case Number: 1:2010cv03007
Filed: January 20, 2010
Court: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Office: Medford Office
Presiding Judge: Mark D. Clarke
Nature of Suit: Economic Stabilization Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
December 2, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 36 ORDER: Granting Defendants' Motion for FRCP54(b) Judgment 31 ; Denying Plaintiff's Motion for summary judgment 34 . Ordered & Signed on 12/2/10 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (kf)
August 23, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 25 ORDER: Adopting Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke's Report and Recommendation 22 . Plaintiff's TARP claim is DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff's claim against Chase and Washington Mutual are DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff is granted 30 days to amend the complaint to name the FDIC as a party. Should the clerk receive undeliverable mail as a result of a failure to notify the clerk of any change in mailing address, the court may, after 60 days, dismiss the complaint, strike the pleadings, or enter a default. See Local Rule 83-12. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 8/23/2010 by Judge Owen M. Panner. (dkj)
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 Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Chancey v. Washington Mutual Asset-Backed Certificates WMABS Series 2007-HE2 Trust Issuing Entity et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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?