Principal Residential Mortage v. Rajnikant Shah et al
| Principal Residential Mortgage |
| Rajnikant K Shah and Sunita Shah |
| 2:2005cv01126 |
| April 15, 2005 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Charleston Office |
| Robert S Carr |
| Patrick Michael Duffy |
| Consumer Credit |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 6, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 17
ORDER of USCA as to #14 Notice of Appeal filed by Rajnikant K Shah,, Sunita Shah,, #10 Notice of Appeal filed by Rajnikant K Shah,, Sunita Shah, dismissing the appeal based on the parties filing of a stipulation to dismiss (mnew, )
|
| Filing 16 Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re #14 Notice of Appeal, #10 Notice of Appeal (mnew, ) |
| Filing 15 Transmittal Sheet for Notice of Appeal to USCA re #14 Notice of Appeal The Clerk's Office hereby certifies the record and the docket sheet available through ECF to be the certified list in lieu of the record and/or the certified copy of the docket entries. (jwol, ) |
| Filing 14 NOTICE OF APPEAL re #13 Order on Motion to Stay Filing Fee and Docket Fee paid - Filing fee $ 255, receipt number 3081. (Attachments: #1 amended undertaking on appeal)(jwol, ) |
|
Filing 13
ORDER denying #12 Motion to Stay signed by Judge Patrick Michael Duffy on 7/14/2005. (ssan, )
|
| Filing 12 MOTION to Stay judgment and or leave to file a written undertaking by Rajnikant K Shah, Sunita Shah. Response to Motion due by 8/1/2005 (Attachments: #1 Memo in support)No proposed order(jwol, ) |
| Filing 11 Transmittal Sheet for Notice of Appeal to USCA re #10 Notice of Appeal The Clerk's Office hereby certifies the record and the docket sheet available through ECF to be the certified list in lieu of the record and/or the certified copy of the docket entries. (mnew, ) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE OF APPEAL re 8 Order on Motion for Reconsideration Filing Fee and Docket Fee PAID - Filing fee $ 255, receipt number 3051. (mnew, ) |
| Filing 9 Memorandum in support re #7 MOTION for Reconsideration re #6 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations Response filed by Rajnikant K Shah, Sunita Shah. (jwol, ) |
|
Filing 8
ORAL ORDER that the Defendants Motion for Rule 60(b) FRCP Relief is DENIED by Judge Patrick Michael Duffy on 06/28/05. (mcoo, ) Modified to correct docket text on 6/29/2005 (tshe, ).
|
| Filing 7 MOTION for Rule 60(b) FRCP relief re #6 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations by Rajnikant K Shah, Sunita Shah. No proposed order(jwol, ) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrage Judge remanding case to the Court of Common Pleas for Charleston County. Signed by Judge Patrick Michael Duffy on 6/13/05. (chub, )
|
| Filing 5 OBJECTIONS to order for summary remand by Rajnikant K Shah, Sunita Shah to #4 Order. (jwol, ) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER for Summary Remand re #1 Notice of Removal filed by Rajnikant K Shah, Sunita Shah remanding this case to the Court of Common Pleas for Charleston County; details set forth in order. Signed by Judge Robert S Carr on 4/29/05. (jwol,)
|
| Filing 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Rajnikant K Shah, Sunita Shah.(jwol, ) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Rajnikant K Shah, Sunita Shah from State of South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, case number 2001-CP-10-3691. (Filing fee $ 250 receipt number SCX2000027), filed by Rajnikant K Shah, Sunita Shah.(jwol, ) |
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
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.
