Dudley et al v. Indymac Bank FSB et al
Case Number: 2:2008cv03658
Filed: November 3, 2008
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office: Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Office
Presiding Judge: Thomas E Rogers
Presiding Judge: Terry L Wooten
Nature of Suit: Plaintiff
Cause of Action: Diversity
Jury Demanded By: 28:3001 Federal Debt Collection Act

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
March 15, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 65 ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 48 Motion to Dismiss. It is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 3/15/2010. (prou, )
September 9, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 57 ORDER RULING ON 43 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. It is hereby Ordered that the Magistrate Judge's Report is Accepted and Defendants' motions to dismiss 37 and 11 are hereby granted. However, this case is not closed. While the claims agai nst IndyMac Bank have now been dismissed, the Court remands to the Magistrate Judge the question of whether this dismissal should be with or without prejudice. The Magistrate Judge shall consider the FDIC's motion to dismiss with prejudice 48 and issue a Report and Recommendation advising this Court as to a recommended resolution of this case. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 9/9/2009. (gnan, )
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 this case: Dudley et al v. Indymac Bank FSB 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?