Crawley v. Mann Bracken LLP
| Gina Crawley |
| Mann Bracken LLP |
| 3:2009cv00500 |
| June 1, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Davidson |
| Joe Brown |
| Robert Echols |
| None |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
77
ORDER: The 70 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and made the findings of fact and conclusion of law of this Court. It is hereby ORDERED that Pltf's 54 Motion for Judgment is GRANTED IN PART, and the plaintiff is awarded a default judgmen t against defendant Mann Bracken, LLP in the amount of $17,279.35. The court notes that the Receiver, who has been appointed for the defendant, has basically consented to the entry of this Judgment. This case is REFERRED back to Magistrate Judge Brown under the original referral Order for further handling or for his order to the Clerk to close this file. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 08/23/2010. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(ab)
|
|
Filing
63
ORDER: The Pltf may submit additional evidence on the items the Magistrate Judge has stated he will not recommend for part of a judgment by 06/18/2010 or she may request a hearing date with the Magistrate Judge during the month of June. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 06/01/2010. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(ab)
|
|
Filing
27
ORDER: The Court rules as follows: (1) the 18 Report and Recommendation is REJECTED; (2) Defendant Mann Bracken, LLP's 9 Motion And Memorandum To Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant To F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) is hereby DENIED; (3) Plaintif f's 14 Motion To Preserve Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby GRANTED; (4) Plaintiff's 16 Motion to Amend Complaint to add a claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act is hereby GRANTED; (5) the Clerk is directed to file under a separate docket entry number Plaintiff's Amended Complaint; and 6) this case is hereby returned to the Magistrate Judge for entry of a Scheduling Order. Signed by Senior Judge Robert Echols on 01/26/2010. (xc: Pltf by reg. and cert. mail) (ab)
|
|
Filing
18
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that 9 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Mann Bracken LLP be GRANTED and that is action be DISMISSED with prejudice on res judicata grounds. Any party has 10 days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation within which to file with the District Court any written objections to the proposed findings and recommedation made herein. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 09/08/09. (xc: Pltf by reg. and cert.mail)(ab)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Crawley v. Mann Bracken LLP | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Gina Crawley | |
| 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: Mann Bracken LLP | |
| 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.
