Grice v. Independent Bank

Grice v. Independent Bank

Plaintiff:	Jamila Grice
Defendant:	Independent Bank
Case Number:	7:2020cv01948
Filed:	May 19, 2020
Court:	US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Presiding Judge:	Timothy M Cain
Nature of Suit:	Contract: Other
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
March 26, 2024	Filing 172 ORDER: The court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 147 ). The motion is granted to the extent Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached its contract with Plaintiff by asse ssing Overdraft fees on APPSN transactions prior to March 9, 2017. Plaintiff's other claims remain.The court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation's analysis of the South Carolina Door Closing Statute, (ECF No. 161 ), overrules Plaintiff 's objections thereto (ECF No. 166 ), and finds no reason for deviating from the magistrate judge's recommendation that the court deny class certification on that basis. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is DENIE D. (ECF No. 129 ).Finally, the court declines Plaintiff's suggestion that this action should be transferred to the Western District of Michigan in lieu of denial of class certification. (ECF No. 166 at 16-17). Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 3/26/24. (kmca) Modified on 3/26/2024: to edit text (add dash 16-17) (kmca).
August 5, 2022	Filing 107 ORDER denying Defendant's 101 Motion for Reconsideration re 96 Order. Signed by Honorable Joseph Dawson, III on 8/5/22.(kmca)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 26, 2024

Filing 172 ORDER: The court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 147 ). The motion is granted to the extent Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached its contract with Plaintiff by asse ssing Overdraft fees on APPSN transactions prior to March 9, 2017. Plaintiff's other claims remain.The court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation's analysis of the South Carolina Door Closing Statute, (ECF No. 161 ), overrules Plaintiff 's objections thereto (ECF No. 166 ), and finds no reason for deviating from the magistrate judge's recommendation that the court deny class certification on that basis. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification is DENIE D. (ECF No. 129 ).Finally, the court declines Plaintiff's suggestion that this action should be transferred to the Western District of Michigan in lieu of denial of class certification. (ECF No. 166 at 16-17). Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 3/26/24. (kmca) Modified on 3/26/2024: to edit text (add dash 16-17) (kmca).

August 5, 2022

Filing 107 ORDER denying Defendant's 101 Motion for Reconsideration re 96 Order. Signed by Honorable Joseph Dawson, III on 8/5/22.(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 this case: Grice v. Independent Bank
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Jamila Grice
Represented By:	David M Wilkerson
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: Independent Bank
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.

Why Is My Information Online?