McClure v. Rapid Mortgage Company, Inc.
| Kiara McClure |
| Rapid Mortgage Company, Inc. |
| 0:2021cv02611 |
| August 13, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Mary Geiger Lewis |
| Consumer Credit |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1691 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 11, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 MOTION to Dismiss by Rapid Mortgage Company, Inc.. Response to Motion due by 10/25/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: #1 Memo in Support)No proposed order.(Kelley, Ashley) |
| Filing 12 TEXT ORDER granting #10 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re #1 Complaint. (Rapid Mortgage Company, Inc. answer due 10/13/2021) Signed by Honorable Mary Geiger Lewis on 9/22/2021.(cbru, ) |
| Filing 11 DELETION OF DOCKET ENTRY NUMBER 8. Reason: Attorney refiled instead of submitting corrected document via email as directed. Corrected Filing Document Number #10 . Modified filing date to that of original filing: N/A - Correction made on same date as original filing. Response due date modified to that of original filing: N/A - Correction made on same date as original filing. (cbru, ) |
| Filing 10 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint by Rapid Mortgage Company, Inc. Response to Motion due by 10/6/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. No proposed order.(Ward, Harriet) Modified to correct motion relief and to edit text on 9/22/2021 (cbru, ). |
| Filing 9 DELETION OF DOCKET ENTRY NUMBER 5. Reason: Incorrect attorney log in used. Corrected Filing Document Number 8 . Modified filing date to that of original filing: N/A - Correction made on same date as original filing. Response due date modified to that of original filing: N/A - Correction made on same date as original filing. (cbru, ) |
| Filing 6 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Rapid Mortgage Company, Inc..(Ward, Harriet) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to Rapid Mortgage Company, Inc.. (mdea ) |
| Filing 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Kiara McClure.(mdea ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Rapid Mortgage Company, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0420-10015565.), filed by Kiara McClure. Service due by 11/12/2021(mdea ) |
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 South Carolina 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: McClure v. Rapid Mortgage Company, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Kiara McClure | |
| Represented By: | J Cameron Halford |
| 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: Rapid Mortgage Company, Inc. | |
| Represented By: | Ashley Kutz Kelley |
| Represented By: | Harriet Condon Ward |
| 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.
