Goodson v. Bank of America, N.A.

Goodson v. Bank of America, N.A.

Plaintiff:	Inge Goodson
Defendant:	Bank of America, N.A.
Case Number:	1:2012cv00065
Filed:	July 6, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Office:	Columbia Office
County:	Hickman
Presiding Judge:	William J. Haynes
Nature of Suit:	Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action:	15 U.S.C. § 1692
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 10, 2014	Filing 54 ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Bank of America, N.A. (Docket No. 20 ) is hereby GRANTED, and Plaintiff Inge Goodson's claims against this Defendant are hereby DISMIS SED WITH PREJUDICE. With that ruling, Defendants Motion to Strike (Docket No. 29 ) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment on a separate document in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 3/10/2014. (hb) Modified text on 3/11/2014 (hb).
June 27, 2013	Filing 42 ORDER: Emergency MOTION to Continue Trial Date 37 is Granted, the Motion to Consolidate 37 is Denied. Jury Trial reset for 11/19/2013 in Columbia before District Judge Kevin H. Sharp. Pretrial Conference reset for 11/8/2013 at 2:30 PM before District Judge Kevin H. Sharp. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 6/27/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 10, 2014

Filing 54 ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Bank of America, N.A. (Docket No. 20 ) is hereby GRANTED, and Plaintiff Inge Goodson's claims against this Defendant are hereby DISMIS SED WITH PREJUDICE. With that ruling, Defendants Motion to Strike (Docket No. 29 ) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment on a separate document in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is SO ORDERED. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 3/10/2014. (hb) Modified text on 3/11/2014 (hb).

June 27, 2013

Filing 42 ORDER: Emergency MOTION to Continue Trial Date 37 is Granted, the Motion to Consolidate 37 is Denied. Jury Trial reset for 11/19/2013 in Columbia before District Judge Kevin H. Sharp. Pretrial Conference reset for 11/8/2013 at 2:30 PM before District Judge Kevin H. Sharp. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 6/27/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

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 Tennessee Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Goodson v. Bank of America, N.A.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Inge Goodson
Represented By:	John R. Ates
Represented By:	Patrick M. Barrett, III
Represented By:	Henry Franklin Todd, Jr.
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: Bank of America, N.A.
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?