Roel v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation
| Lawrence Roel |
| HSBC Mortgage Corporation |
| 7:2018cv01994 |
| July 19, 2018 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Spartanburg Office |
| Spartanburg |
| Timothy M Cain |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 29, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 TEXT ORDER granting #8 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant's answer due by 9/27/18. Entered at the direction of the Honorable Timothy M Cain on 8/29/18.(kmca) |
| Filing 8 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer, Move, or Otherwise Respond to Complaint by HSBC Mortgage Corporation. Response to Motion due by 9/12/2018. 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.(Barnwell, Brian) |
| Filing 6 LETTER EXTENDING TIME TO ANSWER HSBC Mortgage Corporation answer due 9/6/2018. (Barnwell, Brian) |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued as to HSBC Mortgage Corporation. (Attachments: #1 Summons c/o CT Corporation)(kmca) |
| Filing 3 Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Lawrence Roel.(kmca) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against HSBC Mortgage Corporation (Filing fee $400 receipt number 0420-7897120), filed by Lawrence Roel. Service due by 10/17/2018.(kmca) |
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.
